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 [DC Cir 1923]), 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.
