Tardif v. City of New York
- Kimba Wood
- 1:13-cv-04056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 24
In Tardif v. City of New York, Judge Wood partly granted and partly denied the City’s expert-evidence motion, allowing most testimony but barring certain opinions.
Mary Tardif may present most of the four experts’ testimony at trial, but Lawler and Krishna face limits on opinions diagnosing or attributing the cause of her injury, and Krishna may not assign particular care or costs to the 2012 incident. The City of New York’s motions were granted in part and denied in part.
What happened
In Tardif v. City of New York, the City asked the court to prevent four experts for Mary Tardif from testifying at trial. The City argued that their methods were unreliable and that their testimony would not help the jury.
Judge Wood allowed the experts to testify about brain-imaging findings, Tardif’s brain-injury diagnosis, the seriousness and likely permanence of her condition, future care, care costs, and inflation. But the court barred some opinions linking Tardif’s current condition or specific care needs to the 2012 incident.
Judge Wood granted the motion in part and denied it in part. She also denied the City’s separate request to bar Tardif from presenting a damages theory based on traumatic brain injury.
The detailed version
- Tardif v. City of New York · No. 1:13-cv-04056
- Kimba Wood
- June 17, 2022
Background
The City moved before trial to exclude testimony from four experts whom Mary Tardif intended to call: neuroradiologist Gregory J. Lawler, neurologist Ranga C. Krishna, life-care planner Linda Lajterman, and economist Mark P. Zaporowski. The City relied on Rules 401, 402, 403, and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert, which requires courts to screen expert testimony for relevance, helpfulness, and reliable methods. The City did not challenge the experts’ qualifications. It also did not depose Tardif’s experts or offer its own opposing experts.
The court ordered supplemental affidavits describing the experts’ methods and reliability. No party requested a hearing on the expert issues.
Dr. Gregory J. Lawler
The court found Lawler’s opinions about identifying a bright area on Tardif’s brain scans, reduced fractional-anisotropy values, and findings that likely represented axonal injury or loss to be relevant, reliable, and helpful. Lawler could compare the 2012 and 2009 scans and explain the significance of the imaging findings. The court treated disputes about the proper comparison baseline and the correctness of his conclusions as issues for cross-examination and the jury, rather than reasons to exclude the testimony.
Lawler could not testify that the imaging findings showed that Tardif likely suffered a traumatic brain injury. The court explained that diagnosing such an injury requires more than imaging alone, including medical history, records, clinical examination, and diagnostic testing. Lawler also could not testify about the cause of Tardif’s alleged brain injury. He could, however, discuss generally the medical conditions and incidents that can produce the relevant imaging findings or axonal injury.
Dr. Ranga C. Krishna
The court found reliable and admissible Krishna’s diagnosis that Tardif’s clinical findings were consistent with traumatic brain injury, as well as his opinions about the seriousness and permanence of her injuries and her need for future care. Krishna based his opinions on Tardif’s reported history and symptoms, his neurological examination, brain imaging, and medical records. The court concluded that diffusion tensor imaging, or DTI, had sufficient support from testing, publication, clinical use, and decisions from other courts under the federal Daubert standard.
The court did not allow Krishna to testify about the specific cause of Tardif’s condition or current and recent symptoms. It found that he had not adequately excluded head injuries Tardif experienced in 2019 and 2020 as possible causes. He also could not attribute any particular portion of her future medical care or its cost to the March 21, 2012 incident. Krishna could testify generally about events that can cause traumatic brain injury, answer hypothetical questions about whether an alleged blow to the head could plausibly cause such an injury, and discuss the possible cause of the white-matter finding on the March 24, 2012 scan. He could also testify about the severity of Tardif’s injuries and recommended care without assigning those matters to the 2012 incident.
Ms. Linda Lajterman
The court denied the City’s motion to exclude Lajterman’s testimony. Lajterman’s life-care plan and cost estimates were relevant and helpful to calculating damages if the jury found liability and causation. The court rejected the City’s arguments that Lajterman’s methodology was unreliable because she did not work with Tardif’s treating physicians or because her report primarily estimated costs. Those objections went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
Professor Mark P. Zaporowski
The court denied the City’s motion to exclude Zaporowski’s testimony. Zaporowski used historical Consumer Price Index data from 2000 through 2020 to project future inflation for medical care and other services. The court found that his inflation-adjustment testimony was relevant to future medical costs and that the City had not shown the methodology to be unreliable.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the City’s motion to preclude Tardif’s experts from testifying. It also denied the City’s separate motion to bar Tardif from presenting a damages theory based on traumatic brain injury. The court denied the City’s motion to strike Krishna’s addendum report.
Read the full 24-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.