Opinion
C.A. No. 00C-07-006WLW
Submitted: June 7, 2002
Decided: June 7, 2002 Corrected Order
Upon Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Defendants' Expert.
Granted in part; Denied in part.
Noel E. Primos, Esquire, of Schmittinger Rodriguez, Dover, Delaware, for the Plaintiffs.
Jeffrey A. Young, Esquire, of Young Young, Dover, Delaware for the Defendants.
ORDER
This 7th day of June 2002, after consideration of the submissions of the parties, it appears to the Court that:
Facts
1. This case arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on July 21, 1998, on State Street, in Dover, Delaware. Emma Benjamin ("Benjamin") was operating a sedan vehicle and was reportedly waiting to turn left when Thomas Mehrtens ("Mehrtens") struck Benjamin's vehicle in the rear. Apparently Gary Thorpe ("Thorpe") was a passenger in the Benjamin vehicle. (Collectively, Benjamin and Thorpe are the "plaintiffs".) Mehrtens was driving a cargo van for his employer Appliance and Refrigeration Services, Inc. ("AR"). (Collectively, Mehrtens and AR are the "defendants".)
2. Plaintiffs have identified an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Richard DuShuttle, to testify that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, the medical conditions experienced by the plaintiffs are caused by the above-noted accident.
3. In response, defendants have identified a biomechanical expert, Dr. Lawrence Thibault ("Thibault") of Biomechanics, LLC, to testify to a reasonable degree of scientific and biomedical engineering certainty that inter alia:
a. the participants in the accident at issue could not have sustained any cervical injury beyond transient neck muscle strain;
b. it was not possible for Thorpe to sustain a concussion; and
c. Benjamin could not have sustained traumatically induced carpal tunnel from the accident.
Claims of the Parties
4. The plaintiffs seek to preclude the testimony of Dr. Thibault because he is not a medical doctor; therefore, his proffered testimony regarding the causation of the plaintiffs' injuries is improper.5. The defendants respond that Dr. Thibault's opinions are within the scope of his specialty and expertise. For this reason, he should be permitted to explain to the jury why the forces involved in the accident could not have caused the injuries claimed by the plaintiffs.
Discussion
6. "The plaintiff always has the burden of proving by competent evidence that there was a reasonable probability of a causal connection between each defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury." If the injury is a medical condition, this rule almost always requires a plaintiff to set forth expert medical testimony to establish a prima facie case showing the appropriate medical nexus ("in terms of reasonable medical probability"). Dr. DuShuttle will testify as to causation within a reasonable degree of medical probability.
Money v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Disease Compensation Trust Fund, 596 A.2d 1372, 1377 (Del. 1991) (citations omitted).
Id. (citing Mountaire of Delmarva, Inc. v. Glacken 487 A.2d 1137, 1141 (Del. 1984) to illustrate the proposition that the plaintiff must prove that a "medically ascertainable nexus exists").
7. Dr. Thibault is unqualified to rebut Dr. DuShuttle's testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs, that the car accident was the medical cause of the alleged injuries.
Dr. Thibault's testimony as to causation of plaintiffs' injuries would only confuse and mislead the jury. Plaintiffs have submitted other Delaware case law directly on point in this matter. In Kelly v. McHaddon, the court "conclude[d] that a biomechanical engineer may testify regarding the forces created by an impact and the general effects on the human body caused by such forces. The expert [could] not, however, testify regarding the cause of the plaintiff's particular medical problems."
Compare Mancari v. A.C. S., Inc., 1995 WL 567022 (Del.) (citing Lee v. A.C. S. Co., Inc. 542 A.2d 352 (Del.Super.Ct. 1987) with approval for decision to exclude testimony of epidemiologist because the epidemiologist's opinion lacked the individual considerations essential to a medical determination of causation).
2001 WL 209858 (Del.Super.Ct.).
Id.
8. For these reasons, and in accordance with Kelly, Dr. Thibault may testify as to "the forces implicated by a particular accident and their effect upon the human body generally." However, he "will not be permitted to testify regarding the cause (or lack thereof) of the plaintiff[s'] injuries." Id.
Id.
Wherefore, consistent with this opinion, plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Defendants' Expert is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.