The Middle District of Pennsylvania recently held in Bixler v. Lamendola (Civil Action 3:20-CV-1819, M.D. Pa., July 5, 2022) that expert medical testimony was not required to prove the causal relationship between the trauma sustained and an alleged resulting injury in cases where that relationship between the trauma and injury was “obvious” to an average factfinder.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that plaintiff’s case should be dismissed for a lack of expert evidence linking the collision to the plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff testified that his body was tossed about the cab of the truck resulting in multiple bumps and bruises to his head, knees, and arms. Two days later, plaintiff began to experience numbness in his left hand, and later, neck stiffness. It was later determined by a treating neurologist that the plaintiff’s symptoms were caused by a bulging disc and pinched nerve in his neck. There was no evidence indicating the plaintiff had previously experienced similar symptoms or had been diagnosed with a similar condition.
Bixler followed a line of prior Pennsylvania cases holding that expert medical testimony is not necessary to prove causation when the connection between the event and the injury or condition is sufficiently obvious to the average person. It pointed out that these cases typically possess two traits. One, the injury is apparent or begins to produce symptoms with a relatively short time following the event, and two, the injury is the type one would reasonably expect to result from the event in question.
Bixler is significant because the connection between the injury and the trauma sustained may not be as clear as a broken bone or other obvious injury related to the accident. Despite that, the court found that Mr. Bixler’s injury and its relationship to the accident was not so complex as to require an expert to make that connection. The Court noted that the accident involved trauma to the plaintiff’s head, symptoms originated from a bulging disc in the neck, the symptoms arose fairly soon after the accident (2 days), and there was no indication that the plaintiff had any similar injury or condition prior to this accident. The court stated “a jury could easily find [Mr.] Bixler’s injuries were the natural and probable consequence of the accident.”
Questions regarding this Opinion can be directed to David Friedman.
