Tardif v. City of New York
- Kimba Wood
- 1:13-cv-04056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tardif v. City of New York, Judge Wood denied reconsideration, preserving limits on testimony about the cause of Tardif’s brain injury and symptoms.
The ruling affected the City of New York’s effort to exclude evidence and Mary Tardif’s ability to present limited expert testimony about her alleged brain injury, symptoms, and brain-imaging finding.
What happened
In Tardif v. City of New York, the City asked the court to bar evidence about Mary Tardif’s alleged brain injury. The request followed an earlier ruling limiting testimony by Dr. Krishna about whether the March 21, 2012 incident caused her traumatic brain injury and current symptoms.
The court rejected the City’s argument that the evidence should be excluded because there was no competent proof of causation. The court said the general possibility that a blow to the head can damage the brain was not disputed, and that the City could challenge Tardif’s theory about the cause of her recent symptoms through cross-examination.
Judge Wood denied the City’s motion to reconsider. Dr. Krishna may discuss general ways that events can cause traumatic brain injuries, answer hypothetical questions about whether the alleged 2012 blow could plausibly cause such an injury, and testify about the cause of a brain-imaging finding. He may not say that the 2012 incident caused Tardif’s traumatic brain injury or any particular share of her current symptoms.
The detailed version
- Tardif v. City of New York · No. 1:13-cv-04056
- Kimba Wood
- June 22, 2022
Background
The City moved to preclude, meaning prevent the admission of, evidence concerning Mary Tardif’s alleged brain injury. The motion followed the court’s earlier ruling on the City’s second motion in limine, a request to limit evidence at trial. That earlier ruling barred Dr. Krishna from testifying that Tardif’s traumatic brain injury (TBI) and current symptoms were specifically caused by the March 21, 2012 incident.
Arguments and Analysis
The City’s motion sought reconsideration of the earlier ruling. The court rejected the authorities cited by the City because they involved more complex causation questions, such as whether chemical exposure caused a particular cancer. The court stated that whether a blow to the head can damage the brain was not disputed in this case. The dispute instead concerned whether a different blow to Tardif’s head, occurring years later, caused her recent and current symptoms.
The court concluded that the City could challenge Tardif’s damages theory through cross-examination rather than by barring testimony about a particular group of symptoms. The court also reiterated that Dr. Lawler had not claimed to establish the cause of anything observed in Tardif’s brain imaging.
Permitted and Prohibited Testimony
The court’s prior ruling allowed Dr. Krishna to testify about his general knowledge of events that can cause TBI and symptoms like those reported by Tardif. He could also answer hypothetical questions about whether a blow to the head like the one Tardif alleged occurred on March 21, 2012, could plausibly cause TBI. He could testify about the cause of the T2 white matter hyperintensity identified in the March 24, 2012 magnetic-resonance imaging scan, because the court stated that the 2019 and 2020 incidents were not obvious alternative explanations for that finding.
Dr. Krishna could not testify about the specific cause of Tardif’s condition or current and recent symptoms. In particular, he could not say that the March 21, 2012 incident caused the TBI he diagnosed or caused any particular proportion of Tardif’s symptoms or need for future medical care.
Disposition
Judge Kimba M. Wood denied the City’s motion to reconsider. The opinion did not change the existing limits on Dr. Krishna’s testimony.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.