Butler Williams & Skilling Blog

Excluding Dr. Gordon: Part 2

Dr. Gordon's biomechanical opinion testimony is inadmissible under Tittsworth v. Robinson, 252 Va. 151 (1996).  In Tittsworth, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the type of testimony that Dr. Gordon attempts to give in every case is unreliable as a matter of law.  A biomechanical expert determined the force of a crash by reviewing photographs of the crash vehicles, assuming each vehicle sustained the same measure of crush damage, and applying a computer analysis which he had not created.  A physician then opined that the force calculated by the biomechanical engineer was not sufficient to cause the injuries complained of by the plaintiff in the case.  The Court noted that the experts never examined the actual vehicles, did not know if there was undercarriage, frame, or other hidden damage, made assumptions about crush damage, and failed to show that the crash tests relied upon to create the computer program were similar to the conditions in the crash in question.  The Court rejected the junk science as being speculative, founded on assumptions that had an insufficient factual basis, and failing to consider all the variables that bear upon the inferences to be deduced from the facts.  There is no doubt that a retired orthopedic surgeon should not be permitted to testify in any court in Virginia that he can look at vehicle photographs and determine whether the crash produced forces sufficient to cause bodily injury.  This opinion needs to be knocked out in limine.