Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02595/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02595-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barbara Head
Appellee
Ray Head
Appellee
Lithonia Corporation, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COUR.T OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

BARBARA HEAD and RAY HEAD, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

FI LED 

Uoited Stares 0:>urr of Appeals 

Tenth Cirrn> 

AUG 8 1989 

ROBERT L. :HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-2595 

LITHONIA CORPORATION, INC .• , a 

Foreign Corporation, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from·the United States District.Court 

For the Eastern District of Oklahoma 

D.C. No. 87-580-C 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Michael Parks, Stipe, Gossett, Stipe, Harper, Estes, McCune and 

Parks, McAlester, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. 

Richard C. Honn, Rogers, Honn & Associates, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Before MOORE, ANDERSON and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 88-2595 Document: 01019831539 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 1 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Lithonia Corporation, Inc., appeals from a judgment 

on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Barbara Head in this 

diversity action based on products liability. An Oklahoma jury 

awarded plaintiff $100,000 for the permanent injury she sustained 

when the reflector in one of defendant's lights· fell and struck 

her on the head. Defendant now complains the court erred as a 

matter of law in denying its motion for directed verdict and 

abused its discretion in permitting plaintiff to amend the 

pretrial order ~hortly before trial, allo~ing plaintiff's expert 

to testify in an area outside of his expertise, and admitting 

evidence based on data that is not reasonably relied upon by 

experts in the field. The first three assignments of error lack 

merit. However, because the district court failed to address 

defendant's objection to the introduction of certain medical 

testing without a proper foundation, we vacate the judgment and 

remand for a new trial. 1 

I. 

In November 1985, plaintiff was injured at work when the 

reflector portion of a hanging, fluorescent light fixture 

1Because of our disposition of this last issue, it is unnecessary 

for us to expound on our reasons for finding the other issues 

without merit or discuss the sufficiency of the evidence. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2595 Document: 01019831539 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 2 
manufactured by defendant fell and struck her on the side of her 

head. Plaintiff was standing under the light while a fellow 

employee, who had released one end of the shade to remove the 

bulbs and check on a possible electrical problem, was attempting 

to fix the light. Though not knocked to the ground or 

unconscious, plaintiff felt a knot raised on the side of her head. 

She reported the incident to her employer three weeks later and 

visited the company doctor for treatment, complaining of 

headaches, dizziness, and occasional blackouts. Plaintiff was 

placed on medical leave and later terminated. 

Plaintiff initiated this action alleging the quarter-turn 

fastener on the Lithonia light was defective in design and failed 

to properly secure the reflector in place in its grooved channel. 

The defect, she claimed, made the product unreasonably dangerous. 

Plaintiff sought damages of $1,250,000 for the permanent injuries 

to her head and neck. Her husband, Ray Head, alleged damages .of 

$100,000 for loss of consortium. 

At trial, plaintiff called Mr. Jack Geiger, an electrical 

engineer who was qualified as an expert witness, to establish the 

nature of the defect. Mr. Geiger concluded the fastener was 

unreasonably dangerous and could easily be replaced with a screwtype fastener. Plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Michael Haugh, her 

treating neurologist, testified by videotaped deposition and 

explained his conclusions based on patient's history, clinical 

exam, and various tests. Although the results of plaintiff's 

electroencephalbgram (EEG), computerized axial tomography (CATscan), and clinical exam were normal, one test, topographical 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2595 Document: 01019831539 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 3 
brain mapping, apparently pinpointed the location of her injury. 

On the basis of her history and the topographical brain map, Dr. 

Haugh concluded plaintiff suffered from post-concussive syndrome 

and prescribed certain medications to alleviate the headaches. A 

fellow employee, Doug Holbird, identified the light although he 

did not observe the accident. Lithonia defended the action with 

testimony from two mechanical engineers and a neurologist, each of 

whom controverted plaintiff's evidence. The jury returned a 

verdict for plaintiff and awarded her $100,000. Ray Head received 

no recovery. 2 

II. 

During the trial, plaintiff presented evidence of her neck 

and head injury by introducing the videotaped deposition of her 

treating neurologist, Dr. Haugh. Dr. Haugh described his clinical 

examination and findings, explained the neurological. tests he 

administered, and related his observations about plaintiff's 

condition based on this history. Dr. Haugh described the 

topographical brain map test he performed which, he explained, was 

a computerized enhancement of the EEG, using stimulation 

techniques "to bring out abnormal'ities on the EEG." When 

plaintiff attempted to introduce exhibits representing the results 

of the topographical brain mapping test, defendant objected 

contending a proper foundation had not been offered for the test. 

After the jury watched the videotape, defendant renewed its 

objection to the court. The objection was overruled without 

2Ray Head is not a party in this appeal. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2595 Document: 01019831539 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 4 
explanation. Defendant now contends the court erred in permitting 

plaintiff to introduce the test results of topographical brain 

mapping without requiring plaintiff to establish the necessary 

foundation for the reliability of the test. 

Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states: 

The facts or data in the particular case upon which 

an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those 

perceived by or made known to the expert at or before 

the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by 

experts in the particular field in forming opinions or 

inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not 

be admissible in evidence. 

Although the rule broadens the basis on which expert opinions 

may be offered ''to bring the judicial practice into line with the 

practice of the experts themselves when not in court," the 

advisory notes caution: 

If it ~e feared that enlargement_of permissible 

data may tend to break down the rules of exclusion 

unduly, notice should be taken that the rule requires 

that the facts or data "be of a type reasonably relied 

upon by experts in the particular field." The language 

would not warrant admitting in evidence the opinion of 

an "accidentologist" as to the point of impact in an 

automobile collision based on statements of bystanders, 

since this requi~ement is not satisfied. 

The limitation that· the facts and data "be of a type 

reasonably relied upon by experts in the field" provides a 

mechanism by which the court can evaluate the trustworthiness of 

the underlying data on which the expert relies. Barrel of Fun, 

Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 739·F.2d 1028, 1033 (5th Cir. 

1984). This approach does not mean that the expert's opinion 

must be generally accepted in the scientific community to be 

"sufficiently reliable and probative to support a jury finding." 

Osburn v. Anchor Laboratories, 825 F.2d 908, 915 (5th Cir. 1987) 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-2595 Document: 01019831539 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 5 
(citations omitted). "What is necessary is that the expert 

arrived at his .•• opinion by relying upon methods that other 

experts in his field would reasonably rely upon in forming their 

own, possibly different opinions, about what caused the patient's 

disease." Id. 

Lithonia asserts that topographical brain mapping is not a 

method relied upon by other neurologists to establish the disorder 

of which plaintiff complained. During cross-examination, Lithonia 

asked Dr. Haugh if the American Academy of Neurology considered 

topographical brain mapping a medically accepted technique. Dr. 

Haugh responded: · "The technique at the present time has much 

controversy regarding it. And there have been pros and cons on 

both sides. And at the present time I'm not aware that the 

Academy has made a particular position -an it." 

While recognizing that the procedure may have gotten past the 

"experimental stage," Dr. Haugh was not able to explain the 

methodology in the clinical setting: "I do -- I don't I think 

in some ways it is and other ways it isn't at this time. That's a 

vague answer and I'm sorry, but that's the best I can do with 

that." 

Dr. Haugh stated that all of his findings based on the 

clinical examination and test results were normal and did not 

substantiate plaintiff's complaint. Only when Dr. Haugh coupled 

plaintiff's topographical brain map with her medical history, was 

he able to conclude that patient suffered from post-concussive 

syndrome. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 88-2595 Document: 01019831539 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 6 
Through cross-examination, which is a useful tool for 

substantiating reliability, defense counsel elicited testimony 

that topographical brain mapping remained relatively experimental 

and was not accepted by other experts in the specialty of 

neurology or the American Academy of Neurology. 3 Defendant 

properly placed the inquiry before the court. However, despite 

Lithonia's objection to the admission of both the hearsay 

statements, exhibits representing pictures of the brain map, and 

the statements based on this test, the district court made no 

inquiry into the reliability of the foundation of the expert's 

opinion to determine its admissibility. See Soden v. Freightliner 

Corp., 714 F.2d 498, 502-503 (5th Cir. 1983). 

In Barrel of Fun, Inc., 739 F.2d 1028, the Fifth Circuit 

vacated a judgment on the ground that expert testimony based 

solely on th~ results of a psychological stress evaluation (PSE) 

was inadmissible because the test itself was flawed. Likening the 

PSE results to those of a polygraph test, the court noted that 

plaintiff as the proponent of this scientific evidence "has the 

burden of showing as a predicate to its admission that the 

proffered test has achieved scientific acceptability and that the 

3when defendant attempted to question Dr. John Hastings, a 

neurologist who had examined plaintiff, on whether he performed a 

topographical brain map, plaintiff's counsel objected on the 

ground the pretrial order stated the neurologist would testify 

about his examination, diagnosis, and prognosis. Called to the 

bench, plaintiff's counsel explained his objection. "He asked him 

why he did not do a brain mapping, and I feel like he is going to 

criticize brain mapping. And here it was not set on here that he 

was going to criticize any of the tests that was [sic] given. It 

just says examination, diagnosis, and prognosis, and he has 

already done that." Defense counsel attempted to fit the 

testimony within the area of what the neurologist did, but the 

court disagreed and the line of questioning ceased. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 88-2595 Document: 01019831539 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 7 
test has a reasonable measure of trustworthiness." Id. at 1032 

(citation omitted). The Fifth Circuit found defendant State Farm 

had failed to meet that burden by simply stating the PSE test was 

used by the fire marshal's office. 

In our case, plaintiff's counsel asked Dr. Haugh when he 

first began using topographical brain mapping. Dr. Haugh 

explained that he was the first neurologist to use the test in the 

Tulsa area and maintained the equipment in his office. Over 

defense objection, Dr. Haugh proceeded to offer his personal 

opinion of the value of the topographical brain mapping compared 

to "EEG traditional methods? Is one any better than the other, in 

your opinion?" Aside from his description of the actual test and 

this testimony, Dr. Haugh offered no other information on which 

the triei of fact could understand the reliability of the test, 

i.e.,. whether the scientific community has accepted the test. 

Under Fed. R. Evid. 703 experts are given wide latitude to 

testify on facts otherwise not admissible in evidence and "to 

broaden the acceptable bases of expert opinion." Merit Motors, 

Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 569 F.2d 666, 672-73 (D.C. Cir. 1977). 

Implicit in the rule, however, is the court's guidance to "make a 

preliminary determination pursuant to Rule 104(a) whether the 

particular underlying data is of a kind that is reasonably relied 

upon by experts in the particular field in reaching conclusions." 

3 J. Weinstein & M. Burger, Weinstein's Evidence ,r 703[03], at 

703-16 (1982). This determination must be made on "a case-by-case 

basis and should focus on the reliability of the opinion and its 

foundation rather than merely on the fact that it was based, 

-8-

Appellate Case: 88-2595 Document: 01019831539 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 8 
technically speaking, upon hearsay." Soden, 714 F.2d at 503 

(citation omitted). Thus, the district court "may not abdicate 

its independent responsibilities to decide if the bases meet 

minimum standards of reliability as a condition of admissibility." 

In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245 

(E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd, 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987). 

In this case, we believe the court abused its discretion in 

failing to address defendant's objection to Dr. Haugh's testimony 

based on topographical brain mapping. Rule 703 contemplates that 

the court will play some role in the assessment of expert 

testimony offered to a jury. While the tri~l process can leverage 

the probative value of this testimony, the process presupposes the 

court's guidance. Because the record does not sufficiently 

establish the trustworthiness of topographical brain mapping. or 

its acceptance in the relevant scientific community, we VACATE the 

judgment and REMAND for a new trial. 

-9-

Appellate Case: 88-2595 Document: 01019831539 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 9 
Appellate Case: 88-2595 Document: 01019831539 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 10