Head v. Lithonia Corp., 881 F.2d 941 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

1989

Chapter

12

Title

Opinion and Testimony - Lay and Expert

Page

567

Topic

Experimental Expert Testimony needs to be reasonably relied upon and trustworthy

Quick Notes

Plaintiff was injured at work when the reflector portion of a hanging, fluorescent light fixture manufactured by defendant fell and struck her on the side of her head.  Plaintiffs expert used brain mapping to pinpoint location of injuries that the EEG and CAT-scan could not see.  Brain mapping was argued to be unreliable because it was experimental, controversial and not accepted by other experts.

Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

o         The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing.

o         If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.

Court - Dr. Haugh offered no information to the reliability of the test or that the scientific community has accepted the test.

Under Fed.R.Evid. 703

o         Experts are given wide latitude to testify on facts otherwise not admissible in evidence and "to broaden the acceptable bases of expert opinion.

Rule 104(a) - Is Data Reasonably Relied Upon By Experts

o         the court's guidance to "make a preliminary determination pursuant to Rule 104(a) whether the particular underlying data is of a kind that is reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in reaching conclusions.

Court - District Court Abused its discretion

o         The court abused its discretion in failing to address defendant's objection to Dr. Haugh's testimony based on topographical brain mapping.

Book Name

Evidence: A Contemporary Approach.  Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves.  ISBN:  978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o         Whether expert testimony is admissible for not accepted experimental methodology?  No.

Procedure

Trial

o         United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, which entered judgment on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff injured party in her action based on products liability. The jury awarded injured party damages for the permanent injury she sustained when the reflector in one of defendant's lights fell and struck her on the head.

Appellant

o         The district court failed to make a preliminary finding under Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) as to the admissibility of the evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 703. The information offered by injured party's expert was insufficient for the trier of fact to understand the reliability of the test. Although corporation's cross examination could leverage the probative value of expert's testimony, the process under Rule 703 presupposed that the district court would provide some guidance and play a role in the assessment of the expert testimony.

Facts/Cases

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules/Laws

Pl - Head

Df - Lithonia Corp

Description

o         In November 1985, plaintiff was injured at work when the reflector portion of a hanging, fluorescent light fixture manufactured by defendant fell and struck her on the side of her head.

o         Plaintiff was standing under the light while a fellow employee, who had released one end of the shade to remove the bulbs and check on a possible electrical problem, was attempting to fix the light.

o         Though not knocked to the ground or unconscious, plaintiff felt a knot raised on the side of her head.

o         She reported the incident to her employer three weeks later and visited the company doctor for treatment, complaining of headaches, dizziness, and occasional blackouts.

o         Plaintiff was placed on medical leave and later terminated

Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

o         The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing.

o         If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.

What is necessary

o         The expert needs to arrived at his . . . opinion by relying upon methods that other experts in his field would reasonably rely upon in forming their own, possibly different opinions, about what caused the patient's disease.

Lithonia asserts - Brain Mapping Not method relief upon

o         Topographical brain mapping is not a method relied upon by other neurologists to establish the disorder of which plaintiff complained.

o         During cross-examination, Lithonia asked Dr. Haugh if the American Academy of Neurology considered topographical brain mapping a medically accepted technique.

o         Dr. Haugh responded: "The technique at the present time has much controversy regarding it.

o         And there have been pros and cons on both sides.

o         And at the present time I'm not aware that the Academy has made a particular position on it."

In Barrel of Fun

o         Judgment vacated on the ground that expert testimony based solely on the results of a psychological stress evaluation (PSE) was inadmissible because the test itself was flawed.

Burden of Proof

o         The plaintiff as the proponent of this scientific evidence "has the burden of showing as a predicate to its admission that the proffered test has achieved scientific acceptability and that the test has a reasonable measure of trustworthiness."

In This Case

Court - Dr. Haugh offered no information to the reliability of the test or that the scientific community has accepted the test.

Under Fed.R.Evid. 703

o         Experts are given wide latitude to testify on facts otherwise not admissible in evidence and "to broaden the acceptable bases of expert opinion.

Rule 104(a) - Is Data Reasonably Relied Upon By Experts

o         the court's guidance to "make a preliminary determination pursuant to Rule 104(a) whether the particular underlying data is of a kind that is reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in reaching conclusions.

Court - District Court Abused its discretion

o         The court abused its discretion in failing to address defendant's objection to Dr. Haugh's testimony based on topographical brain mapping.

o         Rule 703 contemplates that the court will play some role in the assessment of expert testimony offered to a jury.

o         While the trial process can leverage the probative value of this testimony, the process presupposes the court's guidance.

o         Because the record does not sufficiently establish the trustworthiness of topographical brain mapping or its acceptance in the relevant scientific community, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND for a new trial.

Rules

Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

o         The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing.

o         If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.

Under Fed.R.Evid. 703

o         Experts are given wide latitude to testify on facts otherwise not admissible in evidence and "to broaden the acceptable bases of expert opinion.

Rule 104(a) - Is Data Reasonably Relied Upon By Experts

o         the court's guidance to "make a preliminary determination pursuant to Rule 104(a) whether the particular underlying data is of a kind that is reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in reaching conclusions.

Class Notes