Biomechanics expert overcomes motion to preclude his testimony, and Delaware Superior Court reaffirms criteria required for admissibility.

The plaintiffs moved to exclude Dr. Brock, a biomechanics expert, from testifying at trial that injuries claimed were not caused by the subject motor vehicle accident.  The court denied the motion, finding: (1) Dr. Brock's expert testimony is based on sufficient facts and data and is connected to the plaintiff’s individual characteristics; (2) he considered the opinions of Dr. Michael Brooks, M.D., J.D., a neuroradiologist retained by the defendant, regarding the plaintiff’s pre-existing degenerative spine condition, as well as the absence of prior complaints of neck and back pain in the plaintiff’s medical history; (3) he relied upon biomechanical studies; and (4) Dr. Brock testified that, based on the totality of the material he reviewed, the testing performed and the studies he referenced, he considered his opinions to be based on reliable principles and methods in the field of biomechanical study.  Additionally, while not necessary, the medical expert retained by the defense did rely on Dr. Brock’s conclusions in forming his expert opinion, “thereby reinforcing the admissibility of Dr. Brock’s testimony.” 

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}