Expert testimony regarding causation related to medical condition, when it is based purely on an expert's training and experience, is pure opinion testimony and, thus, is not subject to a Frye analysis.

In Thorne, the insurer appealed several issues, including whether an expert witness' testimony regarding the causal link between injuries and a failure to wear a seatbelt was properly excluded based on a Frye nearing. The Second District Court of Appeal held the trial court improperly limited this testimony because the Florida Supreme Court previously held, "[A]n expert's opinion is based on the expert's training and experience, and that medical expert testimony concerning the causation of a medical condition will be considered pure opinion testimony—and thus not subject to Frye analysis—when it is based solely on the expert's training and experience." Here, the plaintiff conceded biomechanics is not a new or novel science and, therefore, this limitation was improper. This case is important so that defendants are aware that any attempt to limit such testimony is inappropriate.

Case Law Alert, 3rd Quarter 2013