The North Carolina Court of Appeals faulted an attorney for challenging a decision to admit expert testimony without relying on the North Carolina Rules of Evidence. A doubtful experiment in shell casing ejection by a prosecution expert was deemed admissible because the defense attorney failed to challenge the admissibility of the experiment under Daubert.

Facts of the Case

John Turner shot Nicholas Parker. The two neighbors had a quarrelsome history. They had heated disputes about the location of their property boundary, among other issues.

Turner testified that a stray dog had been causing problems in the neighborhood. Turner said he had tried, without success, to get the dog under control.

Turner testified that he heard gunshots coming from Parker’s property. He then saw that the stray dog was injured. Believing that Parker had shot the dog, Turner armed himself with a handgun. Turner then walked down the road to find the dog.

Turner saw the dog at about the time he encountered Parker. Turner chambered a round in his gun, apparently to ready himself to end the dog’s suffering. He discovered, however, that the dog had already died.

According to Turner, Parker was enraged. Turner testified that Parker said that he shot the dog and would shoot Turner too. Turner also testified that Parker said he had been “waiting for this” and that they would “get this over with.”

Turner testified that he saw Parker reach for his waist. Assuming that Parker had a weapon in his waistband, Turner shot him. Turner testified that he was “stumbling backward” when he fired the shots. Turner then called 911 to request medical assistance for Parker.

The medical examiner testified that Parker was shot eleven or twelve times. All but two of the bullets entered Parker’s back.

Turner argued that he acted in self-defense. Even if Parker had no gun, a mistaken belief that the facts justify killing another person in self-defense could result in a conviction for the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter under North Carolina law.

The jury found Turner guilty of murder. The jury also found Turner guilty of possessing a firearm as a felon.

Expert Testimony

Investigators discovered eight shells at the crime scene that had been ejected from Turner’s gun. The shells were in a straight line and at various distances from each other.

Kelby Glass, a forensic firearms examiner employed by the sheriff’s department, testified over objection as an expert witness for the prosecution. Glass conducted an experiment to determine the direction and distance that shells would travel after being ejected from Turner’s gun.

Glass testified that when he fired the gun while it was parallel to the ground, the ejected casings traveled backward and to the right for about eight or nine feet. When he angled the gun downward, the ejected casings traveled forward and to the right for about nine to eleven feet.

Glass offered no opinion about Turner’s location or movement when he fired the gun. Given the location of the shell casings, the prosecutor argued that Glass’ experiment disproved Turner’s testimony that he was stumbling backwards when he shot the gun.

The prosecutor argued that the position of the shell casings proved that Turner was moving toward Parker as he fired the gun. The prosecutor asked the jury to infer that Turner shot Parker in the back after Parker was already on the ground, an inference that is inconsistent with self-defense.

Potential Daubert Challenges to Expert’s Experiment

North Carolina has interpreted its Rules of Evidence in a matter that adopts the Daubert standard. Had Turner based his objection on Daubert, he could have challenged Glass’ testimony on the ground that it was not derived from a reliable methodology. Glass did not claim to have fired the gun while stumbling backwards. In the absence of that data, it is difficult to understand how Glass’ experiment could be said to disprove Turner’s testimony.

There is no suggestion in the appellate decision that Glass based his experiment on a peer-reviewed methodology. At least one forensic study concluded that a variety of factors can affect shell casing ejection patterns, including how the shooter gripped the gun. Two different people standing in the same location and holding the same gun at the same angle can produce significantly different ejection patters. That information, if placed before the court, might have convinced the judge that Glass’ experiment was incapable of returning meaningful results.

Moreover, Glass did not interpret his experimental results. The prosecutor, who certainly isn’t a forensic expert, provided an interpretation during closing argument. One wonders how an expert’s testimony about experimental results that fails to recreate the circumstances of the shooting and that is not accompanied by interpretative analysis was relevant. One might also wonder how a prosecutor with no scientific credentials at all was permitted to express opinions about the meaning of an experiment that the expert who conducted it failed to articulate.

Court’s Analysis of Turner’s Challenge

How the court might have analyzed a Daubert challenge is unknown because Turner did not make one. Instead, he relied on an older line of North Carolina cases that he viewed as more favorable to his position. While those cases, which ask whether the challenged experiment was “substantially similar” to the facts of the case, raise questions that are relevant to a Daubert analysis, they do not reflect the totality of the Daubert standard.

The court of appeals concluded that the “substantial similarity” of an experiment is no longer a standalone test in North Carolina. Rather, the Daubert analysis asks whether the expert’s opinion is based on sufficient facts or data, was the product of reliable principles and methods, and derived from a reliable application of those methods to the facts.

A strong challenge to each of those prongs could have been advanced. Turner could doubtless have found a forensic expert of his own to challenge the reliability of Glass’ methodology and the adequacy of the data that his experiment produced. He could also have challenged the relevance of an experiment that the expert witness fails to interpret. Since he didn’t, the court rejected his argument because it was based on precedent that is no longer controlling.

Lessons Learned

Although Turner did not mention the Daubert standard on appeal, the appellate court noted that it would “readily conclude” that the trial court would not have abused its discretion if it had applied the Daubert standard. On the record before the court, that observation might have merit. However, Turner’s counsel didn’t make a record that would allow the court to apply Daubert in a meaningful way.

The appellate court recognized that Glass didn’t know how Turner was gripping the gun and that Glass and Turner were standing on different surfaces when Glass conducted his test. However, Glass testified that those differences weren’t important. That was good enough for the appellate court to conclude that a Daubert challenge would have failed.

Turner could have challenged Glass’ opinion by calling his own forensic expert. The court might have come to a different conclusion after learning that research undermines Glass’ confidence that his failure to consider important variables did not influence his findings. It is difficult to understand how Glass’ experiment could have survived a Daubert analysis if an expert, relying on peer-reviewed studies, had pointed out the obvious flaws in Glass’ methodology.

There are two lessons to learn from Turner’s case. First, in a Daubert state, objections to the admissibility of expert evidence should be framed in terms of the Daubert standard. Second, when the prosecution wants to introduce an expert witness, the defense should always investigate the possibility of calling its own expert to elucidate flaws in the prosecution expert’s methodology.

The Idaho Supreme Court has ruled that an Idaho family will have another chance to prove that a hospital is vicariously liable for the actions of doctors because a lower court improperly excluded its expert witness testimony.

The Injury

In May 2015, Duane Dlouhy went to the emergency room at Kootenai Health because of rectal bleeding. Dr. Robert Seeley performed a CT scan on Dlouhy and found “no obvious mass,” but noted the presence of “dark red blood.” A radiologist noted that a “neoplasm could not be excluded.” Dlouhy was discharged from the hospital.

Just hours later, Dlouhy went back to the hospital when the rectal bleeding resumed and his wife found him passed out in the bathroom. Another doctor saw Dlouhy and noted that the CT scan that had been performed earlier that day revealed “some thickening of the lateral aspect of the rectum.” Dr. Michael James performed a colonoscopy on Dlouhy but was unable to get a complete view of the rectum. Dr. James suspected that the bleeding was diverticular and noted that there was a large amount of blood and clotting in the mid-ascending colon. Dlouhy was discharged and followed up with his primary care physician in June 2015.

Dlouhy had additional follow-up visits related to his gastrointestinal issues in June 2015, September 2015, and January 2016. The possibility of colorectal cancer was not discussed or charted at any of these visits. In August 2016, Dlouhy was diagnosed with stage IV colorectal cancer.

The Lawsuit

In May 2017, the Dlouhys filed a complaint against the Kootenai Clinic and two physicians, alleging medical malpractice.  On June 5, 2017, Dlouhy died of colorectal cancer. Amended complaints were filed, adding Dlouhy’s children as plaintiffs and adding additional doctors, Western Medical Associates, and Kootenai Health as defendants. The parties settled claims against all defendants, with the exception of Kootenai Health.

The Dlouhys retained expert witnesses to testify on their behalf. Two experts, Kenneth J. Hammerman, M.D., and Judy L. Schmidt, M.D., were retained to testify about the standard of care. Kootenai Health filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Dlouhys failed to establish an essential element of their claim because they had not presented experts with “actual knowledge” of the applicable community standard of care. The district court agreed with Kootenai Health and granted the motion for summary judgment. The Dlouhys appealed.

Dlouhy v. Kootenai Hospital District

The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. In Idaho, for an expert to testify about the applicable community standard of care, “he or she must have actual knowledge of the community standard as it existed ‘at the time and place of the alleged negligence.’” Plaintiffs may use local experts (who practice in the same community as the defendant health care provider with actual knowledge of the community standard of care that applies) or out-of-area experts (who must also explain how he or she came to be familiar with the community standard of care). Both Dr. Hammerman and Dr. Schmidt were out-of-area experts.

The court noted that for board-certified specialists, the local standard of care is equivalent to the national standard of care. Both of the proposed experts were board-certified in gastroenterology.  By reviewing the record, the court determined that Dr. Hammerman learned that the community standard of care did not deviate from the national standard of care by reviewing depositions. The court also determined that Dr. Schmidt had not given a timely affidavit or declaration in response to the motion to summary judgment. The court concluded that the district court had erred in excluding Dr. Hammereman’s testimony only.

The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the order granting summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court for additional proceedings.

A defendant who alleges that he committed a violent act in self-defense must usually establish a reasonable basis for believing that his safety was threatened. Courts have recognized that evidence of drug use may be relevant when the defendant was attacked by a drug user whose violent conduct can be explained by the ingestion of drugs. An expert witness can help a jury understand why the use of a particular drug may have caused the attacker’s aggressive behavior, thus posing a threat to the defendant.

The defendant in a recent North Carolina case argued that he should have been allowed to use an expert witness to bolster his theory that he acted in self-defense after being attacked by a methamphetamine user. In an opinion that fails to recognize the important role that expert witnesses play in helping juries understand evidence of drug intoxication, an appellate court affirmed the decision to disallow the expert testimony.

Facts of the Case

Shirley Hollifield left her home at midnight to put gas in her car. A man confronted her. The man was later identified as Chris English. Hollifield texted Jerry Echols, the boyfriend with whom she lived, to tell him about the confrontation. She was sobbing when she returned home twenty minutes later.

Echols wanted to know why English had approached Hollifield late at night. Echols and Hollifield drove to a neighborhood where they spotted English. They testified that English was babbling before he got down on all fours and started growling at them. English then charged at Echols and Hollifield.

English fought with Echols, who got on top of him. After Echols let English go, English again got on all fours, started growling, and rushed toward Echols. Echols pulled a handgun from his pants and shot English. Echols testified that he believed English was armed. Echols and Hollifield then drove away.

English had been a regular user of methamphetamine since his release from prison about a year earlier. English suffered from paranoia and hallucinations. On the night of the shooting, English was “talking crazy” and “not making any sense” before he was seen to use drugs. He then began smoking methamphetamine with other users. One of those users testified that English was growling like a dog when she last saw him.

The police discovered English’s body at 1:00 a.m. A couple of days later, Echols fled from a police officer who tried to pull him over for running a red light. The officer arrested Echols and, during a search of his car, found the handgun he used to shoot English.

Expert Evidence

Echols was charged with murder. At his trial, an expert witness testified that she matched Echols’ handgun to the shell casings found at the scene of the shooting.

Echols wanted to introduce the expert testimony of Wilkie A. Wilson, a neuropharmacologist. Wilson would have testified that English’s aggressive and bizarre behavior was consistent with methamphetamine intoxication. Echols contended that Wilson’s testimony would have bolstered his contention that he was acting in self-defense after being attacked by a person who was seemingly deranged.

The trial judge ruled that Wilson’s proposed testimony was based on speculation rather than a reliable application of scientific principles and methods to the facts of the case. The defense countered that the evidence established English’s use of methamphetamine and that Wilson’s specialized knowledge of the behavioral effects of methamphetamine ingestion supplied a reliable basis for his expert opinion.

The trial judge also ruled that the relevance of Wilson’s testimony was outweighed by its prejudicial nature because English was behaving strangely before he ingested methamphetamine. Yet there was no evidence that English was behaving aggressively, much less getting on his hands and knees and growling like a dog, until he used the drug.

Appellate Analysis

In a decision that strikes a blow to the ability of defendants to use expert witnesses to educate juries, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that Wilson’s testimony was inadmissible. According to the court, Wilson’s testimony was not supported by sufficient facts and was therefore speculative. The court noted that Wilson did not examine English, but failed to explain why an examination was necessary to opine about the pharmacological effects of methamphetamine ingestion.

Wilson based his opinion about English’s drug use on the testimony of other witnesses, as experts are entitled to do. Those witnesses saw English smoking methamphetamine. Wilson explained that abundant studies prove that methamphetamine ingestion causes the kind of behaviors that English exhibited. That evidence supplied a factual basis for Wilson’s conclusion that English was suffering from methamphetamine intoxication when he attacked Echols.

The trial court ruled that there was “a real problem” concerning whether the facts upon which Wilson relied were correct. But deciding whether facts are correct is the jury’s duty. Courts improperly deny parties the benefit of a jury determination when they take it upon themselves to decide disputed facts. Since the evidence would have permitted the jury to rely upon the facts that informed Wilson’s opinion, the opinion should not have been rejected simply because the court had a “real problem” with those facts.

The trial court drew a distinction between testimony that methamphetamine makes people behave in the way that English behaved — a conclusion that, as the court conceded, is well established by science — and testimony that English was violent because he used methamphetamine. That distinction is illusory. Would a court say that an expert can testify that alcohol impairs driving but disallow testimony that the driving ability of a driver who drank a bottle of bourbon was impaired by alcohol consumption?

Courts routinely allow experts to draw conclusions about human behavior, at least when the experts testify for the prosecution. Disallowing Echols the opportunity to use an expert in his defense was plainly unwarranted.

The Utah Supreme Court has ruled that a district court went too far when it allowed an expert to offer undisclosed causation testimony.

The Injury

Noe Arreguin-Leon was injured while installing an exit sign on the shoulder of I-15. A driver had fallen asleep at the wheel and the car veered off the road and into a ladder, where Arreguin-Leon was standing.

At the time of his injury, Arreguin-Leon was employed by Highway Striping & Signs. This company had been hired by Hadco, a general contractor, to install signage for the Utah Department of Transportation. Part of Hadco’s task was to implement a “traffic control plan” to protect workers from traffic and drivers from the construction site. Hadco had failed to do so. At the time of Arreguin-Leon’s accident, there were no traffic control measures in place.

Arreguin-Leon suffered significant injuries and sued the driver and Hadco.

District Court

In district court, Arreguin-Leon retained Bruce Reading to testify as an expert on traffic control standards. Hadco’s counsel chose to depose Reading instead of receiving an expert report. At trial, Reading testified “that Hadco or its subcontractor had violated five specific engineering practices, regulatory standards, and contractual provisions and that there was no traffic control plan in place at the accident site.”

Arreguin-Leon’s counsel asked Reading, “If [200 yards from the construction project is] where [the driver] started to exit the roadway, what effect would a correctly installed buffer zone have had on his driving?” Hadco’s counsel objected, arguing that this testimony was going toward causation and was beyond the scope of the opinion that was disclosed. Arreguin-Leon’s counsel argued that because a deposition had been elected instead of a report, Reading’s testimony was not limited. The court overruled the objection.

Reading testified that a proper traffic plan would have included an area where the driver would have to have hit one or more plastic barrels and “would have had closer to six seconds to wake up and take corrective action.” He also testified that if the accident had still taken place, it would not have taken place in the same location.

A jury ultimately found that Hadco was partially liable for Arreguin-Leon’s injury. Hadco appealed.

Court of Appeals

On appeal, Hadco argued that the district court erred by allowing Reading to offer an undisclosed opinion on causation. Arreguin-Leon argued that Hadco could not make this argument without relying on the expert disclosures and deposition transcript, but these were not a part of the trial record. The court of appeals acknowledged that these documents were not officially part of the trial record, but considered them because of the unique facts of the case.

The court of appeals concluded that the district court abused its discretion in allowing Reading to testify about causation at trial. It determined that the error was harmful and required a new trial.

Utah Supreme Court

Arreguin-Leon petitioned the Utah Supreme Court for certiorari. The court granted his request.

In reviewing the case, the court determined that the expert disclosures and deposition transcript were not necessary to Hadco’s argument or the court of appeals’ ruling. The court noted that the fact that a party’s opponent chooses a deposition instead of an expert witness report does not mean that the expert’s trial testimony can be a “free-for-all.”

The Utah Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals that Reading improperly testified about causation and that the error was harmful. The court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the district court for a new trial.

Bradley Myers sued Frank Sebastianelli and his business, Ameripride Fence Company, for personal injuries. Myers was employed as a truck driver. He delivered materials to Sebastianelli’s company. The only forklift at Ameripride was inoperable, so Myers attempted to unload the materials by hand.

Bundles of pipe were placed across dunnage (similar to landscaping timbers) on the floor of the truck. The dunnage allows the fork of a forklift to slide beneath the bundles of pipe. As Myers was attempting to unload the pipe, a piece of dunnage swung in his direction, fracturing the tibia and fibula in his left leg. He also suffered a torn rotator cuff in his shoulder.

Myers argued that Sebastianelli was negligent for failing to supply a working forklift to unload the materials from the truck. A jury apportioned negligence to each party, finding that 51{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} of the fault for the accident rested with Sebastianelli while attributing the remaining 49{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} to Myers.

Expert Testimony

Myers supported his claim for damages with expert testimony from several witnesses. An orthopedic surgeon testified that he surgically inserted a metal rod in Myers’ leg. Myers needed a second surgery after he developed compartment syndrome. Following that surgery, he developed chronic regional pain syndrome, accompanied by swelling in the leg. The surgeon testified that the pain syndrome is a permanent condition that prevents Myers from returning to his former work. The surgeon later removed the rod and discussed amputation as an alternative to living with the pain.

A reconstructive surgeon testified about treating wounds to Myers’ leg following the surgery and the permanent scarring that those wounds caused. An expert in rehabilitative medicine testified about limitations in Myers’ leg that make it difficult for him to walk. The doctor testified about pain treatment for Myers’ syndrome and confirmed that Myers is only able to work at light duty jobs involving very limited standing or sitting and no climbing or significant lifting.

Another orthopedic surgeon testified about surgical repairs made to Myers’ torn rotator cuff. The parties agreed that the cost of medical care Myers had received for his leg and shoulder injuries to date was about $530,000.

An expert in nursing, nurse life-care planning and projecting future medical costs testified that the future cost of pain management and medical treatment will be about $910,000. Additional costs of about $200,000 will be incurred if Myers elects to have an amputation and to use a spinal stimulator to ease his pain.

Finally, Myers offered the testimony of a vocational expert and forensic economist. That expert calculated that the injuries caused Myers to lose wages and benefits of about $212,000. He testified that Myers’ loss of future earning capacity and benefits has a value of about $1 million.

Challenge to Jury Verdict

The defense did little to challenge the expert testimony regarding Myers’ damages. The defense focused instead on liability. It succeeded to the extent that the jury found Myers to be 49{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4} at fault. Under North Carolina law, that finding caused he amount the jury awarded to Myers as damages to be reduced by 49{d61575bddc780c1d4ab39ab904bf25755f3b8d1434703a303cf443ba00f43fa4}.

Inexplicably, the jury awarded Myers nothing for past or future medical expenses. It also awarded nothing for lost earnings or loss of future earning capacity. The jury awarded $500,000 for past and future pain and suffering.

Myers moved for a new trial. He argued that the expert testimony established that he had incurred medical expenses and a wage loss because of his injuries. The expert testimony also related his wage loss and loss of future earning capacity to his accident injuries. Myers contended that the jury had no basis for ignoring the expert testimony when it awarded him no damages for those losses.

The trial court decided not to disturb the jury verdict for pain and suffering. It did, however, award Myers a new trial regarding his economic damages.

Appellate Decision

Both parties appealed from the order granting a new trial. Sebastianelli argued that juries decide damages and that the jury had spoken. In the absence of any argument that Myers received an unfair trial, Sebastianelli asked the appellate court to respect the jury’s decision.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed that jury verdicts are not typically disturbed, but it concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial as to economic damages. Pennsylvania law permits a damages verdict to be “set aside as inadequate when, and only when, it is so inadequate as to indicate passion, prejudice, partiality, or corruption, or that the jury disregarded the instruction of the court, or in some instances, where there was a vital misapprehension or mistake on the part of the jury, or where it clearly appears from the uncontradicted evidence that the amount of the verdict bears no reasonable relation to the loss suffered by the plaintiff.”

The jury found that Sebastianelli was negligent and that his negligence caused harm to Myers. No evidence suggested that any other cause contributed to those injuries. Medical expenses were obviously part of the harm that Sebastianelli’s negligence caused. Expert testimony established that Myers’ accident injuries required medical attention. Sebastianelli offered no expert evidence to the contrary.

The parties stipulated to the amount and reasonableness of Sebastianelli’s past medical expenses. The jury was not free to disregard that stipulation. Nor was it free to disregard uncontradicted expert evidence that the expenses were incurred because of Myers’ accident.

The jury may have had more leeway in awarding future medical expenses, given the absence of a stipulation about the likely amount of those expenses. In addition, there was a factual dispute as to whether the expense of an amputation and/or a spinal cord stimulator should be included in the verdict, given that Myers had refused both treatments.

If the jury had awarded an amount for future medical expenses that was in the ballpark of the expert’s projection, after subtracting the cost of an amputation and spinal cord stimulation, Myers would not likely have been given a new trial as to future medical expenses. However, since the expert testimony that he would need some amount of future health care was uncontradicted, the jury was not free to ignore that testimony and to award Myers nothing.

The same analysis required an affirmance of the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial regarding lost wages. Myers’ serious injuries clearly prevent him from returning to work as a truck driver. While there may have been a dispute about Myers’ alleged failure to mitigate his damages by not agreeing to an amputation or spinal cord stimulation, the expert evidence that he lost income and will continue to lose income because of his inability to work as a truck driver was unchallenged. A verdict of zero was not supported by the evidence.

Jurors Cannot Ignore Uncontested Expert Evidence

Jurors are free to disbelieve expert testimony if they have a rational basis for doing so. The Superior Court agreed with the trial court that there was no rational reason to disregard uncontradicted expert testimony regarding damages.

Sebastianelli argued that the jury may have returned a compromise verdict. While the Superior Court noted that Pennsylvania law regarding compromise verdicts is “murky,” it deferred to the trial judge’s conclusion that the verdict did not result from a compromise.

It is difficult to understand how a rational compromise could have resulted in a decision to award damages for pain and suffering resulting from an accident but not for medical expenses and lost wages resulting from the same accident. The trial judge was in the best position to decide whether the jury’s verdict likely represented a compromise rather than an irrational failure to award damages that were clearly established by the evidence.

Sebastianelli argued that if a new trial is granted, it should address all categories of damages, including pain and suffering, not just economic damages. Myers did not oppose that request, probably because most juries return a larger award for pain and suffering than they award for medical expenses. The appellate court agreed to allow Myers to present expert testimony as to all issues of damages.