Key Takeaway
Court dismisses expert affidavit lacking credentials and objective testing in personal injury case, highlighting foundation requirements for expert testimony.
In New York personal injury litigation, expert testimony can make or break a case. When plaintiffs seek to establish serious injury claims, particularly involving psychological conditions, courts scrutinize both the qualifications of the expert and the methodology used in their evaluation. A recent First Department decision demonstrates how fundamental deficiencies in expert credentials and examination procedures can doom an otherwise viable claim.
The case highlights two critical requirements for expert testimony: proper foundation regarding the expert’s qualifications and adequate examination procedures. When experts fail to establish their credentials or conduct insufficient testing, courts may find their opinions lack the necessary foundation to survive summary judgment motions. This principle applies across various types of expert testimony, where proper foundation remains essential for admissibility.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Cruz v Martinez, 2013 NY Slip Op 03417 (1st Dept. 2013)
“Even if an anxiety disorder could constitute a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law, the affidavit of Benjamin Hirsch, Ph.D., who evaluated Clark once, did not raise an issue of fact. Indeed, Hirsch, who did not set forth his expert credentials, noted that he did not perform any objective neuropsychological tests, since Clark did not describe any symptoms of neuropsychological distress”
Two problems here. One, there was no discussion of the doctor’s credentials. Perhaps a header stating that he is licensed or that he was a PH.D somewhere would have been sufficient. Furthermore, the failure to examine a body part despite a claimant’s failure to state an injury to the body part is insufficient.
Key Takeaway
Expert affidavits must establish both the expert’s qualifications and demonstrate adequate examination procedures. Courts require proper foundation showing the expert’s credentials and methodology, even when examining psychological injuries. Failing to meet these basic requirements can result in dismissal regardless of the potential validity of the underlying injury claim.
