Plaintiff sued defendant related to an automobile accident. Plaintiff hired Chiropractic Expert Witnesses to provide testimony. Defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court denied the motion to exclude.
Facts: This case (SHENG v. BISSONNETTE – United States District Court – Southern District of Indiana – May 31st, 2019) involves an automobile accident. The plaintiffs argue that the defendant should be held liable for medical expenses, lost wages, and damages for personal injuries they suffered as a result of the accident. The defendant’s insurance company intervened in this case. The plaintiffs hired Chiropractic Expert Witnesses Carolyn Fancher, D.C.; Darcy Fox, D.C.; and Merry Harris, D.C. to provide testimony. The insurance company has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of the chiropractors.
Discussion: The insurance company alleges that the expert testimony goes beyond the scope of practice and casually connects the plaintiff’s medical issues with the accident.
The court notes that the insurance company and the defendant rely on law from several jurisdictions to support their argument that chiropractors may not testify regarding medical issues or causation. The court disagrees with this argument opining that, under federal law, chiropractors are not prohibited from testifying about medical issues or causation in all circumstances. Thus, the court opines that without a showing of medical testimony that is unquestionably beyond the expertise of chiropractors.
First, the insurance company provides case law support from four states supporting that chiropractors are to be excluded from providing testimony about the cause of medical issues. However, the court notes that the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert standards govern the admissibility of evidence in diversity cases. The court also notes that the admissibility of testimony related to chiropractors is fact dependent and not suited for preliminary challenge.
The court also opines that even if the court looked at state law, the came findings would be reached, that chiropractors are not prohibited from testifying on all medical issues.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Carolyn Fancher is denied.