TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS STRIKES EXPERT’S CONCLUSORY OPINION ON CAUSATION

Last week, the Austin Court of Appeals held that a testifying expert’s opinion on the issue of accident-to-injury causation was not supported by a reliable basis.  In Williams and Loomis Armored US, LLC v. Crawford, No. 03-16-00696-CV, 2018 WL 1124306, (Tex. App. —Austin, March 02, 2018, mem. op.), Crawford was injured when he was rear-ended by an armored truck.  Among the several injuries that Crawford complained of at trial was a synovial cyst (which necessitated a surgery and cost approximately $27,000).  At trial, Dr. Robert Josey testified that Crawford’s synovial cyst was caused by the accident.  However, he also testified that (1) a synovial cyst is most often, though not always, caused by degeneration; and (2) Crawford’s synovial cyst did not develop until 2015 or 2016, three to four years after the accident. Additionally, Dr. Josey failed to explain how he had concluded the accident caused the cyst.  Quickly and without much effort, the Court of Appeals concluded that Dr. Josey’s testimony “constitute[d] no evidence that the accident was a proximate cause of [the complained-of injury].”