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, leaving limits on expert testimony about traumatic brain injury and causation.
Mary Tardif and the City of New York, particularly the evidence and expert testimony they may present concerning Tardif’s alleged traumatic brain injury and the cause of her symptoms.
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 Dr. Krishna’s testimony about whether the March 21, 2012 incident caused Tardif’s traumatic brain injury and current symptoms.
The court denied the City’s motion to reconsider. Dr. Krishna may discuss general knowledge about events that can cause traumatic brain injury, answer hypothetical questions about whether the alleged 2012 blow could have caused such an injury, and testify about the cause of a specific brain-imaging finding. He may not testify that the 2012 incident caused Tardif’s diagnosed injury or any particular share of her symptoms or future medical-care needs.
Judge Kimba Wood said the City could challenge Tardif’s theory about the cause of her recent symptoms through cross-examination rather than by barring the evidence. The order therefore denied the reconsideration motion and kept the earlier testimony limits in place.
The detailed version
- Tardif v. City of New York · No. 1:13-cv-04056
- Kimba Wood
- June 22, 2022
Background
The City of New York moved to preclude, meaning prevent the use of, evidence concerning Mary Tardif’s alleged brain injury. The motion followed the court’s earlier decision on the City’s second motion in limine, a request to exclude evidence before trial. That earlier decision limited the testimony of Dr. Krishna concerning whether Tardif’s traumatic brain injury and current symptoms were caused specifically by the March 21, 2012 incident.
The City characterized its new request as a motion to reconsider the earlier ruling. It argued that Tardif lacked competent evidence to present her newer traumatic-brain-injury claim. Tardif opposed the motion by letter.
Court’s analysis
The court distinguished the cases cited by the City, which involved complex questions such as whether chemical exposure causes a particular cancer. The court said that, in this case, the general question of whether a blow to the head can damage the brain was not disputed. The City instead argued that a different blow to Tardif’s head, occurring years later, caused her recent and current symptoms.
The court also noted that Dr. Krishna could testify about several aspects of causation. He could discuss his general knowledge about events that can cause traumatic brain injury and symptoms like those Tardif reported. He could answer hypothetical questions about whether a blow like the one Tardif alleged occurred on March 21, 2012, could plausibly cause traumatic brain injury. He could also testify about the cause of a T2 white matter hyperintensity identified in Tardif’s March 24, 2012 magnetic-resonance-imaging scan, because the court said the 2019 and 2020 incidents were not obvious alternative explanations for that finding.
The court reiterated that Dr. Krishna could not testify about the specific cause of Tardif’s condition or current and recent symptoms. He could not say that the March 21, 2012 incident caused the traumatic brain injury he diagnosed, attribute any particular proportion of Tardif’s symptoms to that incident, or attribute a particular proportion of her need for future medical care to it. The court also stated that Dr. Lawler had not claimed to establish the cause of anything observed in Tardif’s brain imaging.
Ruling
The court denied the City’s motion to reconsider. It concluded that the City could challenge Tardif’s theory about the cause of her recent symptoms through vigorous cross-examination, rather than by excluding testimony about a particular group of symptoms she reported having since 2012.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.