Opinion ID: 2972622
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Collins’ Testimony

Text: In Daubert, the U.S. Supreme Court listed four factors as guidelines for a trial judge to consider in assessing whether an expert’s proposed testimony involving scientific or other specialized knowledge will conform to Fed. R. Evid. 702: (a) whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested; (b) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (c) the known or potential rate of error; and (d) general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594; see also Nelson v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 243 F.3d 244, 251 n.5 (6th Cir. 2001). In this case, the district court conducted an extensive inquiry into the qualifications and reliability of the opinions of Dr. Collins and Johanson (as discussed below), including “a review of their deposition testimony, expert reports, testimony during a Daubert hearing (consisting of approximately 30 hours of testimony), along with a summary of such evidence during oral arguments.” The district court recognized Dr. Collins as a qualified expert in the field of 6 biomechanical engineering and summarized Dr. Collins’ opinion testimony as follows (which Dr. Collins admitted was a correct interpretation): In laymen’s terms, what your [sic] saying [is] that your analysis reveals that as the mask went into the boards in face-first posture, that the equilibrium of forces was destroyed by the giving way of the J- clip on the right side, thereby permitting the vertical force to take over because the mask gave way and causing the downward rotation to the crown presentation. The district court excluded Dr. Collins’ testimony because “[w]hile Dr. Collins has performed mathematical calculations, the Court has found these calculations and the methods employed to be suspect and unreliable.” Our review of the record leads us to reach the same conclusion as the district court. First, Dr. Collins’ analysis was based on his personal review of the helmet and mask. His research included watching the videotape of the incident and performing measurements of the helmet and mask, then incorporating such observations and measurements into mathematical calculations based on Newton’s Laws of Physics, a recognized and valid scientific method. Dr. Collins did not, however, attempt to replicate the incident, perform any manner of accident reconstruction or conduct any relevant technical or scientific testing of the helmet/facemask combination (using either the incompatible components present in this case or compatible helmets and masks). Dr. Collins acknowledged that such testing could have been performed to evaluate the veracity of his claims (and Dr. Collins in fact had set up a protocol for such tests), but Plaintiffs had not authorized him to conduct any such tests. Second, Dr. Collins did not cite any published work to buttress his opinion, nor could he 7 because Dr. Collins’ theory has not been subject to peer review and publication. Third, not only does Dr. Collins’ opinion that Mohney’s spinal injury could occur as the result of a face-first impact lack general acceptance within the relevant scientific community, it is not accepted in any scientific community. In fact, Dr. Collins’ preliminary review dated January 24, 2002, quoted another researcher/expert as saying: Biomechanical studies have not supported the notion that the helmet is an important factor in causing spinal injury (Bishop et al. 1983). . . . La Prade and co-workers (1998) found no evidence that face masks are related to an increase in overall head and neck injuries. Fourth, Dr. Collins performed his calculations based on a series of assumptions (including the theory of Johanson regarding the abrupt release of the J-clip rejected by the district court (as discussed below)). Dr. Collins admitted that he did not utilize the actual data as input in the mathematical equations to support his theory but rather used an “illustration of parameters,” i.e., estimates. Dr. Collins then concluded that, within a reasonable degree of biomechanical certainty, such incompatibility of the mask and helmet combination led to a re-direction of the impact forces to cause the spinal injuries and permanent disability. We find that the estimates and assumptions used by Dr. Collins undermine the likelihood that Dr. Collins used data sufficiently tied to the facts of the case here, which the Supreme Court has indicated is critical: Nothing either in Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to the existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert. A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proferred. General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). The correspondence between Dr. Collins 8 and his supervisors also suggests that his supervisors were not convinced of the reliability of Dr. Collins’ calculations and conclusions. For the reasons stated, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Collins’ testimony.