Summary: Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness testimony is allowed because the court ruled that his expert opinion was not speculative because his testimony mirrored that of the state standard in Texas.
Facts: This case (Connell West Trucking Co., Inc. et al v. Estes Express Lines et al – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – November 22, 2022) involves a personal injury claim. One of the plaintiffs, Gucharan Singh, is seeking damages for future medical expenses for the injuries to his knee. The plaintiff hired Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness Dr. Robert Montgomery to provide expert testimony. The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
Discussion: The defendant argued that Dr. Montgomery’s testimony is not reliable or relevant because he has not made a recommendation for surgery and is exhausting other conservative treatments before that. In addition, the defendant argued that Dr. Montgomery’s testimony is speculative, as he stated that the plaintiff would eventually need surgery at some point in his life.
The court stated that expert witness testimony on future medical expenses is not considered speculative when it uses the state standard for damages recovery. In addition, the court opined that testimony is also not speculative when it discusses medical expenses that may occur in the future.
In addition, the court opined that Dr. Montgomery’s testimony mirrored that of the Texas standard when it came to future medical expenses. Because of this, the court ruled that Dr. Montgomery’s testimony would weigh in favor of being admitted as it not that speculative to be admitted.
The defendant also stated that Dr. Montgomery’s expert witness testimony should be excluded because he stated that he could not recommend surgery until he examined the plaintiff again. The court opined that Dr. Montgomery has many years of experience treating injuries like the plaintiff’s. In addition, the court noted that Dr. Montgomery’s examination of the plaintiff outs forth the conclusion that his testimony has the proper foundation.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. Robert Montgomery is denied.