Tardif v. City of New York

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 Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, which require expert testimony to be based on reliable methods and to help the jury. The City also argued that the testimony was not relevant. It did not challenge the experts’ qualifications.

The court explained that Rule 702 requires consideration of an expert’s qualifications, the reliability of the expert’s methods, and the helpfulness of the proposed testimony. The court also considered whether Rule 401 relevance and Rule 403’s protection against unfair prejudice and jury confusion were satisfied. The court noted that admissibility standards are generally permissive and that weaknesses in reliable expert evidence usually affect its weight rather than its admissibility.

Dr. Gregory J. Lawler

Dr. Lawler reviewed Tardif’s brain scans, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). He identified a T2 white-matter hyperintensity and decreased fractional-anisotropy values and concluded that the findings likely represented a focus of axonal injury or axonal loss after trauma. He also observed that the hyperintensity appeared on a March 24, 2012 MRI but not on an April 23, 2009 MRI.

The court held that these opinions were relevant, based on reliable methods, and helpful to the jury. MRI and DTI were reliable methods for identifying the findings at issue, and the City’s criticisms about the proper comparison baseline and the correctness of the conclusions could be addressed through cross-examination. The court also held that Lawler did not claim to identify the cause of Tardif’s alleged injury, so the City’s causation objection did not apply to those opinions.

The court limited Lawler’s testimony. He could testify about T2 hyperintensities, decreased fractional-anisotropy values, and axonal injury or axonal loss, as well as general information about medical conditions and incidents that can produce those findings. He could not testify that the findings showed that Tardif likely suffered a traumatic brain injury, because a traumatic-brain-injury diagnosis requires more than imaging alone. He also could not testify about the cause of Tardif’s alleged brain injury.

Dr. Ranga C. Krishna

Dr. Krishna proposed to testify that Tardif’s clinical findings were consistent with traumatic brain injury; that her symptoms and injuries were caused by the March 21, 2012 incident involving Sergeant Giovanni Mattera; that her injuries were serious and permanent; and that she would need future treatment, including a home health aide. He based his opinions on Tardif’s history and reported symptoms, a neurological examination, brain imaging, and medical records.

The court held that Krishna’s diagnosis of traumatic brain injury was sufficiently reliable. It found that DTI had been tested, published, and accepted by numerous courts as a reliable method in this context. The court also accepted Krishna’s explanation that he applied his training and experience as a board-certified neurologist to Tardif’s history, examination, diagnostic testing, and records.

The court excluded Krishna’s specific causation opinion. Although he reasonably accounted for some possible alternatives, the court found that he had not reliably ruled out head injuries Tardif experienced in 2019 and 2020. Because Krishna considered symptoms, examination results, and a 2021 MRI—not just the 2012 imaging—he could not conclude that later events could not explain Tardif’s current condition. He therefore could not testify about the specific cause of her condition or current and recent symptoms, or attribute any portion of future medical care or its cost to the March 21, 2012 incident.

Krishna could still testify about his diagnosis, the severity and likely permanence of Tardif’s injuries, and his recommendations for current and future care. He could also 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 testify about the cause of the T2 hyperintensity identified on the March 24, 2012 MRI. The court treated the City’s criticisms of his prognosis and care recommendations as issues for cross-examination rather than grounds for exclusion.

The court denied the City’s motion to strike Krishna’s addendum report. It found that the addendum supplied details supporting opinions already stated and addressed a methodology issue on which the court had requested additional information.

Ms. Linda Lajterman

Lajterman, a registered nurse and life-care planner, prepared recommendations for Tardif’s future medical, diagnostic, and other care, along with annual and lifetime cost estimates. The court found her testimony relevant and helpful to calculating damages if the jury found liability and causation.

The court rejected the City’s arguments that Lajterman’s plan was unreliable because Tardif’s treating physicians had not participated and because the report was more a cost estimate than a traditional life-care plan. Those objections went to the weight of the evidence, and life-care-planning methods could reliably be used to estimate care costs. The court denied the City’s motion to exclude Lajterman’s testimony.

Professor Mark P. Zaporowski

Zaporowski calculated projected inflation rates for the future medical costs identified by Lajterman. He used Consumer Price Index data from 2000 through 2020 and assumed that future growth in each category of costs would match past growth.

The court found this testimony relevant because future damages for medical care must account for inflation and the time value of money. It also found the methodology sufficiently reliable. Zaporowski supplied the underlying data, stated that economists generally accept the method, and relied on a methodology other courts had accepted. The City did not provide evidence showing that past inflation rates were an unreliable basis for projecting future rates. The court denied the City’s motion to exclude Zaporowski’s testimony.

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 clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 388.