Biomechanical evidence allowed

Biomechanical Evidence Gains Ground in New York Courts

Personal injury litigation increasingly relies on expert testimony to establish causation between accidents and claimed injuries. One specialized field that has gained significant traction is biomechanical engineering — the study of how mechanical forces affect the human body during accidents. A recent Appellate Term decision demonstrates the courts’ growing acceptance of biomechanical expert testimony when proper foundations are established.

The case of Gonzalez v Palen illustrates how defendants can successfully challenge injury claims through qualified biomechanical experts. This ruling expands opportunities for parties to introduce scientific evidence that examines whether the forces generated in an accident were sufficient to cause the plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Understanding the proper foundation for expert testimony remains crucial for attorneys seeking to introduce or exclude such evidence.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Gonzalez v Palen, 2015 NY Slip Op 51101(U)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2015)

“The trial court erred in determining that defendants’ biomechanical engineer, Dr. Kevin Toosi, was not qualified to render an opinion as an expert as to the cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Even assuming that an evidentiary hearing was warranted to assess Toosi’s professional qualification (see Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 ), the evidence presented at the Frye hearing established that Toosi had the academic and professional qualifications – including a PhD in biomechanical engineering, a license to practice medicine in Iran, and three years’ experience in accident reconstruction, which included the study of the effects of force on occupants inside a vehicle – to render an opinion as an expert on the issue of whether the force generated in the subject motor vehicle accident was sufficient to cause the injuries alleged by plaintiff”

“Inasmuch as Toosi’s testimony was probative of a central issue in the case, the preclusion of this evidence cannot be deemed harmless”

In the realm of biomechanical practice, the Appellate Courts have been expanding the ability of a party to utilize this type of evidence to dispute the central causation issue.

Key Takeaway

This decision establishes that biomechanical engineers with appropriate academic credentials and practical experience in accident reconstruction can qualify as expert witnesses on causation issues. The court’s emphasis that excluding such probative evidence “cannot be deemed harmless” signals stronger protection for properly disclosed expert testimony that addresses central case issues.