Tardif v. City of New York
- Kimba Wood
- 1:13-cv-04056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Tardif v. City of New York, Judge Wood ordered more information about four experts before deciding whether their trial testimony could be admitted.
Mary Tardif, the City of New York, and the four experts whose proposed trial testimony was challenged: Gregory J. Lawler, R.C. Krishna, Linda Lajterman, and Mark P. Zaporowski.
What happened
In Tardif v. City of New York, Mary Tardif sought to present testimony from four experts at trial: neuroradiologist Gregory J. Lawler, neurologist R.C. Krishna, life care planner Linda Lajterman, and economist Mark P. Zaporowski. The City of New York asked the court to exclude their testimony, arguing that their methods were unreliable or that their testimony would not be helpful or relevant.
The court did not decide whether to allow or exclude the testimony. Instead, it ordered each expert to provide a supplemental affidavit explaining the methods used, the supporting sources, and the reliability of the opinions. The affidavits were required by May 4, 2022, and the City could file a factual response by May 11, 2022.
Judge Kimba M. Wood’s order focused on whether the experts’ methods met the requirements for reliable and useful expert testimony. The order required additional information about medical imaging, diagnoses, causation, future care, life-care costs, and inflation projections before the court ruled on the City’s request.
The detailed version
- Tardif v. City of New York · No. 1:13-cv-04056
- Kimba Wood
- Apr. 27, 2022
Background
Mary Tardif sought to introduce testimony from four expert witnesses at the upcoming trial:
- Gregory J. Lawler, a neuroradiologist; - R.C. Krishna, a neurologist; - Linda Lajterman, a life care planner; and - Mark P. Zaporowski, an economist.
The City of New York moved before trial to prevent each expert from testifying. The City argued that the proposed testimony was not reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. It also argued that the testimony was not helpful or relevant under Rules 702 and 403.
Court’s Order
The court did not grant or deny the City’s motion in limine. A motion in limine is a request to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be presented. Instead, the court ordered additional information to help it evaluate the experts’ testimony.
Required submission from Tardif’s experts
By May 4, 2022, Tardif was required to submit a supplemental affidavit from each expert she still wished to call at trial.
Dr. Lawler’s affidavit had to address the reliability of using magnetic resonance imaging, including imaging with and without diffusion tensor imaging, to identify T2 white matter hyperintensity and axonal injury or loss in an individual patient. He also had to explain how he determined that a T2 white matter hyperintensity appeared on Tardif’s March 24, 2012 brain scan but not on her April 23, 2009 scan. The affidavit also had to explain whether his conclusion that Tardif likely experienced head trauma was based on the brain images, Tardif’s description of the injury, or both. He was required to address the relationship between “axonal injury / axonal loss after head trauma” and traumatic brain injury.
Dr. Krishna’s affidavit had to explain the methods supporting his conclusions that Tardif’s clinical findings were consistent with traumatic brain injury, that her symptoms and injuries were caused by the March 21, 2012 incident with Sergeant Mattera, and that she had serious and permanent injuries requiring future care, including a home health aide. He also had to explain his recommended future care and the dollar amounts assigned to that care. In addition, he had to state whether he personally identified brain-image abnormalities or relied on Dr. Lawler’s determinations, identify which images he reviewed, and explain his use of the word “substantially” in his report concerning whether anyone influenced his professional opinion.
Ms. Lajterman’s affidavit had to explain the methods used to develop the life care plan, including the recommendation for two to four hours of homemaker assistance per week for life. She also had to address the reliability of the sources used for cost estimates, including the Physicians Fee Reference 2021 book and a Genworth.com cost-estimation tool. She had to explain how she selected certain cost estimates when relying on figures provided by Dr. Krishna rather than third-party sources.
Professor Zaporowski’s affidavit had to identify the Bureau of Labor Statistics data used for his inflation projections, explain how he used those data to project future inflation in categories such as medical and physician services, and address the reliability of that method.
For each expert’s methods, the court directed the affidavits to address, where applicable, peer review and publication, known error rates, standards governing the method, general acceptance among relevant experts, and other considerations bearing on reliability. The experts were also instructed to identify and attach relevant supporting sources.
Submission from the City
By May 11, 2022, the City could submit a factual memorandum addressing the methods described in the experts’ affidavits. The memorandum was limited to factual issues concerning reliability, such as peer review, error rates, governing standards, general acceptance, and other reliability considerations. The court did not authorize that submission to be a memorandum of law.
Disposition and classification
The court ordered the supplemental affidavits and set deadlines for the parties’ submissions. It did not make a final ruling on whether any expert could testify. This is a procedural order concerning the evaluation of proposed trial evidence, rather than a decision on the underlying claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.