Biomechanical Engineer allowed to testify

Vargas v Sabri, 2014 NY Slip Op 01666 (1st Dept. 2014)

In the world of the use of  bio mechanical engineer issues, this case is actually a watershed case.  Here, the Appellate Division essentially called into question the holding of the Appellate Term 7 years ago in Bronx Radiology, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,17 Misc.3d 97 (App. Term 1st Dept. 2007)(“ccident reconstruction evidence may often prove useful in explaining how an accident occurred, its probative value on issues related to causation is limited unless amplified by a meaningful medical assessment of the claimed injuries”) through holding that a biomechanical expert need not have medical credentials to offer an opinion, within a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, that that motor vehicle accident did not cause the injuries at bar.

The case held as follows:

“The fact that Dr. McRae lacked medical training did not render him unqualified to render an opinion as an expert that the force of the subject motor vehicle accident could not have caused the injuries allegedly sustained (see e.g. Melo v Morm Mgt. Co., 93 AD3d 499, 499-500 ). McRae’s stated education, background, experience, and areas of specialty, rendered him able him to testify as to the mechanics of injury (see Colarossi v C.R. Bard, Inc., 113 AD3d 407 ).

Plaintiffs’ challenge to Dr. McRae’s qualifications and the fact that his opinion conflicted with that of defendant’s orthopedic expert go to the weight and not the admissibility of his testimony (see Williams v Halpern, 25 AD3d 467, 468 ). Plaintiffs’ challenge to the basis for Dr. McRae’s opinion addressed only portions of the evidence relied upon by him. Furthermore, the record shows that plaintiffs improperly attempted to put defendant to his proof by asserting, in the moving papers, that “defendant has not shown that the hearsay studies’ Mr. McRae relies upon are reliable,” without identifying any of the studies referred to or explaining the basis for the belief that the studies were not reliable.”

Related Articles

• Expert witness qualifications for sub-specialist testimony
• Expert competency requirements and medical literature in New York cases
• Foundation requirements for medical malpractice expert testimony
• Medical causation expert opinions in New York personal injury cases
• Personal Injury

Legal Update (February 2026): The admissibility standards for expert testimony, including biomechanical engineering experts, may have evolved since 2014 through subsequent appellate decisions and potentially updated evidentiary rules. Practitioners should verify current judicial standards regarding the qualifications required for biomechanical experts to testify on causation issues in no-fault insurance cases, as the precedential weight of Vargas v Sabri may have been modified by more recent case law.