JUDGE EXCLUDES ENGINEER’S KEY TESTIMONY IN LOW SPEED IMPACT CASE

Note: Due to the size of this report it will be mailed to you via postal mail. Price includes postage!

Across the country insurance companies and consultants such as Biodynamics Engineering Corporation are using biomechanical engineers as experts in personal injury cases. The engineers commonly testify that there is not enough force to cause injuries in low speed impact collisions. The insurance companies then state that they are closing the file and will not make any type of a settlement offer.

Medical and chiropractic doctors know from clinical experience that there is no correlation between the severity of an impact and the probability of injuries. High speed accidents which completely destroy vehicles may result in few injuries while low speed impacts that cause little property damage may cause long-term whiplash symptoms.

In Arizona a group of lawyers and chiropractors met for many months to study this problem. Experts were consulted and many different approaches were considered. Finally, an argument was developed which has seen some success.

In August, 1997, a Superior Court judge issued a landmark opinion in a low speed automobile accident case. The judge ruled that a State Farm expert engineer could not testify regarding the "probability or possibility of Plaintiff’s suffering the injuries about which she was complaining based upon the change in velocity to which she was subjected during the accident." The engineer would only be allowed to testify "(1) regarding the velocity of vehicles, (2) the change in velocity experienced by the Plaintiff based upon his reconstruction of the accident, and (3) about similar forces experienced by people in everyday-life situations at the speed the vehicles were traveling."

The judge based his opinion on two key affidavits prepared by experts:

1. A State University Professor of Statistics: The professor analyzed the validity of the articles which the engineers commonly rely upon to base their opinions. These articles are authored by McConnell, Szabo, West and Seigmund. The professor concluded that because the number of test subjects in these articles is so few (4-7 individuals), the test results cannot be extrapolated to the general population.

2. The Legal Administrator for the Society of Automobile Engineers (SAE), the organization which published the above-listed articles relied upon by the engineers. The Administrator stated that SAE does not analyze the methodology or statistical analysis utilized in the articles, and that SAE does not attest to the scientific validity of these articles.

The judge also reviewed interrogatories which prove that State Farm has given approximately seven million dollars to Biodynamics Research Corporation since 1990. Dr. McConnell’s two key studies were performed at this company’s research facility. These studies conclude that the injuries, if any, from low speed impacts are very minor and transitory.

Since the Arizona judge made his ruling, many lawyers have utilized the same arguments to dispute the opinions rendered by the insurance engineers.

Our Price: $45.00

To order, contact ACS at or 602-368-9496

VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT AND INDIANA CIRCUIT COURT SAY NO TO ENGINEERS

Note: Due to the size of this report it will be mailed to you via postal mail. Price includes postage!

On July 16, 1998, the Lake Circuit Court of Crown Point, Indiana stated that a medical doctor/biomechanical engineer from Biodynamics Research Corporation of San Antonio, Texas would not be allowed to testify that an injury victim could not have been injured in a particular automobile accident because the forces involved were too minor.

The Virginia Supreme Court has also ruled that an engineer may not testify because his argument is "speculative, founded upon assumptions lacking a sufficient factual basis, relies upon dissimilar tests, and contains to many disregarded variables. Consequently, we hold that the testimony is unreliable as a matter of law and, therefore, the trial court erred in admitting it."

In Maricopa County Superior Court, judges now routinely prohibit engineers from testifying regarding the likelihood or severity of injuries from an accident. Injury causation analysis has been fully exposed as junk science.

The tide is finally shifting. When attorneys fully understand how to make the proper arguments, the engineers are excluded from the courtroom.

In 1990 the insurance industry decided to invent a new science called "injury causation analysis." This is, in fact, pseudoscience aimed at depriving injury victims of the benefits which they rightfully deserve.

Every personal injury attorney must be armed with the materials needed to expose injury causation analysis as junk science. For a minimal fee (see below) I will provide you with all the ammunition you need to be fully educated in this area. This new packet includes the following:

1) The 202 page transcript of the "gatekeeper" hearing where the Indiana judge heard arguments from the plaintiff and defense attorneys regarding whether the jury should be permitted to hear from the medical doctor/engineer. The plaintiff’s attorney did a masterful job of clearly explaining why the expert should be excluded.

2) The 5 page order from the Indiana judge which explains in great detail why the engineer was excluded. One conclusion: "The Court specifically finds a lack of proof of any scientific validity of a factual connection between the damage to the vehicles and the injuries to, medical condition and prognosis of the occupants."

3) The 4 page order from the Virginia Supreme Court explaining why the biomechanical engineers injury causation analysis is pure junk science and cannot be argued in court. This is now binding law in the entire state of Virginia.

4) An article which explains why it is scientifically impossible for engineers to state that there was not enough force to cause injury when scientists do not know exactly what tissues are injured as a result of whiplash trauma. The defense engineers claim that sprain or strain is the tissue damage that occurs from whiplash trauma, but real scientists have concluded in articles published in medical journals that the scientific community does not know what tissue is damaged as a result of whiplash.

Attorneys and chiropractors across Arizona have reported that their personal injury cases are under attack by insurance companies more than ever in the past. It appears that the insurers have decided to try to drive chiropractors and plaintiff attorneys out of business by litigating cases to death. A key component of this attack is the pseudoscience of injury causation analysis. We strongly urge you to order a set of the materials noted in this article to counter this attack.

Our Price: $45.00

To order, contact ACS at or 602-368-9496

DO INJURIES RESULT FROM LOW SPEED IMPACT AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Vehicle and occupant response to low speed rear end impacts: Shows what actually happens during a low speed impact.

Do headrests protect the neck from injury? Documents how often headrests are adjusted properly and what happens when they are not.

Can neck muscles contract quickly enough to protect against injuries? Proves that surprise impacts are far more injurious than anticipated impacts.

Is there another injury mechanism other than sprain/strain? Provides information regarding alternatives.

This article includes 23 references to the scientific literature.

Our Price: $15.00

To order, contact ACS at or 602-368-9496