Opinion ID: 2026576
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Exclusion of Expert Testimony Regarding Fibromyalgia Causation

Text: Epp alleges that as a result of the automobile accident, she developed fibromyalgia. To establish the causal connection at trial, Epp sought to present the expert testimony of Handke and Bennett. Following a Daubert hearing on the matter, the trial court granted Lauby's motion in limine excluding their testimony on the ground that the theory underlying their opinions, i.e., that physical trauma can cause fibromyalgia, lack[s] scientific support. On appeal, Epp contends the trial court erred when it excluded the opinion testimony of Handke and Bennett regarding the causation of her fibromyalgia. Before entering into our analysis, we note that we are not deciding whether Epp suffers from symptoms of fibromyalgia. There appears to be no dispute that she does. We are also not deciding as a general proposition whether trauma can cause fibromyalgia. Rather, under our abuse of discretion standard, we are deciding whether there was sufficient evidence presented to allow Epp's experts, Handke and Bennett, to opine that physical trauma was the cause of Epp's fibromyalgia. [6] Under our recent Daubert/Schafersman jurisprudence, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure the evidentiary relevance and reliability of an expert's opinion. Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215, 631 N.W.2d 862 (2001). See, also, Smith v. Colorado Organ Recovery Sys., 269 Neb. 578, 694 N.W.2d 610 (2005). Most recently, we described a trial court's evaluation of the admissibility of expert testimony as essentially a four-step process. State v. Mason, ante p. 16, 709 N.W.2d 638 (2006). First, the court must determine whether the witness is qualified to testify as an expert. If the expert is and it is necessary for the court to conduct a Daubert analysis, the court must next determine whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the expert testimony is scientifically valid and reliable. Once the reasoning or methodology has been found to be reliable, the court must next determine whether the methodology was properly applied to the facts in issue. Finally, the court determines whether the evidence and opinions related thereto are more probative than prejudicial, as required under Neb. Evid. R. 403, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 1995). State v. Mason, supra . The expert qualifications of Handke and Bennett are not at issue. Consequently, we must determine whether the testimony of Handke and Bennett was otherwise admissible under our Daubert/Schafersman framework. Based upon our review of the evidence before the trial court, we conclude that the trial court's determination that the testimony was not admissible was an abuse of discretion.