The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
WILLIAM HARRISON SIMS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:22-cv-1685-PGB-UAM
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA
LLC and BAYERISCHE
MOTOREN WERKE AG,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Medical
Causation Testimony of Dr. Paul Buechel. (Doc. 198 (the “Motion”)). Plaintiff
submitted a Response in Opposition. (Doc. 221). Upon consideration, the Motion
is due to be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
The procedural setting and the standard of review under Daubert are
outlined in the Court’s Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Certain
Testimony of Perry Ponder, P.E. (Doc. 249) and is incorporated here.1
1 Defendants note that the December 1, 2023 amendment to Rule 702 clarifies that the Court
must find that an expert’s opinion “more likely than not” (i.e., the preponderance standard) is
helpful, based on sufficient facts or data, is the product of reliable principles and methods,
and reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. (Doc.
198, p. 6). The amendment is not a seismic shift in the standard of review. District courts were
never empowered to allow or exclude expert testimony on a whim. The preponderance
standard codifies the prevailing practice of allowing opinions when they are sufficiently
II. DISCUSSION2
Defendants seek to exclude Dr. Buechel’s injury causation testimony. They
do not challenge his qualifications as a board-certified neurologist. (Doc. 198, p.
8). They argue, however, that he is not a biomechanical engineer and that sufficient
facts and data do not support his opinions, nor are they based on a reliable
methodology. (Id. at pp. 5, 8–9). Defendants dedicate a single paragraph of their
15-page Motion to explaining why Dr. Buechel’s causation opinions should be
excluded. (Id. at p. 12). Defendants submit, without citation to his expert reports,
that Dr. Buechel “has no facts or data to support his causation opinion.” (Id.). They
also aver that Dr. Buechel did “no testing” without specifying what testing should
have been performed. (Id.). Defendants next contend that Dr. Buechel did not
review Dr. Bonin’s report, again without explaining how this would have been
meaningful, while characterizing Bonin’s report as flawed. (Id.). And Defendants
contend that Dr. Buechel fails to rule out contact with the steering wheel or dash
as the cause of Plaintiff’s neurological injuries. (Id.). As such, Defendants
characterize Dr. Buechel’s opinions as pure ipse dixit of an expert based on too
great of an analytical gap. (Id. (citing Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146
(1997))).
reliable and more probative than prejudicial. Some jurists will find that the amendment
lowers the bar for admissibility rather than raises it.
2 Dr. Buechel’s deposition was taken after the discovery cutoff and without leave of Court. (See
Doc. 192). Citation to an unauthorized deposition to support one’s motion is inappropriate. A
party is not free to disregard the Case Management Scheduling Order. The Court reserves
ruling on whether the unauthorized disposition will be admissible for cross-examination at
trial.
In the introductory section of their Motion, Defendants argue that Dr.
Buechel testified at deposition that Plaintiff could have sustained “a traumatic
brain injury [‘TBI’] from other blunt trauma to the head.” (Doc. 198, p. 4). They
contend this undercuts the reliability of his opinion that the defective inflator and
the shrapnel surgically removed from Plaintiff caused his TBI. (Id.). Defendants
also cite Dr. Buechel’s deposition, in which he states he did not inspect the
shrapnel. (Id.). And the defense avers that Plaintiff’s nasal septal deviation, which
his ear, nose, and throat (“ENT”) physician felt was secondary to striking the wheel
or dash, contradicts Dr. Buechel’s causation opinion. (Id.). None of these
arguments are persuasive, and some of Defendants’ characterization of the
deposition testimony is inaccurate or incomplete.
Dr. Buechel is a board-certified neurologist who conducted two independent
medical evaluations of Plaintiff one year apart. (Doc. 221, p. 2; Doc. 198-1). Dr.
Buechel’s IME and attendant reports serve two functions. First, Dr. Buechel
examined Plaintiff and reviewed all relevant medical records associated with the
injuries sustained from the subject accident. (Doc. 198-1). Dr. Buechel offered an
assessment of Plaintiff’s injuries and limitations based on the medical records,
patient history, and his independent medical evaluations. (Id. at p. 10). Dr. Buechel
then outlined Plaintiff’s future necessary and reasonable medical needs. (Id. at pp.
11–14). Defendants do not contest Dr. Buechel’s qualifications to render these
opinions, the reliability of the principles and methodology employed by Dr.
Buechel, or that his testimony about Plaintiff’s injuries and future medical needs
is helpful to the jury.
Defendants only contest whether Dr. Buechel’s opinion that, “[r]egarding
causality, in the greatest medical probability, it is [his] opinion that each of these
listed diagnoses and symptoms are indeed directly related to the injuries he
sustained in the vehicle airbag explosion which occurred on 10/24/19.” (Id. at p.
11). At deposition, Dr. Buechel clarified that even assuming the ENT is correct that
Plaintiff’s nasal septal deviation was caused by Plaintiff’s face making contact with
the wheel or dash, this is still due to the defective inflator sending shrapnel through
the airbag and preventing it from protecting the Plaintiff. (Doc. 198-2, 70:9–71:9;
Doc. 221, p. 2). Therefore, injuries sustained by contacting the wheel or dash are
caused by the airbag exploding. Dr. Buechel further clarified that “the facial
lacerations, the eye injuries, the cheek lacerations” and “the mechanism of injury,
the speed at which he was going, the size of the lacerations, the depth of shrapnel
that’s impacted,” and related fractures indicate injury caused by the airbag
exploding. (Doc. 198-2, 71:10–71:25). In short, Dr. Buechel did not concede that
his injury causation opinion is unreliable because the ENT found a septal deviation
could have been caused by striking the wheel or dash. To the contrary, Dr. Buechel
observed that Plaintiff’s nasal bridge exam “looked well on the photographs,” and
typically, one would expect a laceration or a bridge abrasion when the patient’s face
strikes the wheel or dash. (Id. 55:20–57:16).
Turning to the methodology employed by Dr. Buechel to support his injury
causation opinion, the Court finds the methodology satisfies the preponderance
standard. It is the product of reliable principles and methods properly applied to
the facts of the case and, therefore, helpful to the jury. As Plaintiff observes in his
response, Dr. Buechel reviewed the medical records and evidence collected from
the scene. He considered the nature of the injuries as “an indication of the size of
the shrapnel” along with the “depth of penetration.” (Doc. 221, p. 2 (quoting 198-
2, 42:9–22)). Dr. Buechel also noted that he saw photographs showing debris and
shrapnel within the vehicle. (Doc. 198-2, 37:4–7). Based on “a combination of the
mechanism of injury, the trauma, itself, with the superimposed shrapnel injuries,”
Dr. Buechel opined the shrapnel caused the brain injury. (Id. 37:16–22). Dr.
Buechel also testified that he had conducted research since the early 1990s on head
injury and is “comfortable with the mechanism [of injury]” based on the damage
caused by the shrapnel, the size of the lacerations, and that surgery was required
to remove shrapnel. (Id. 38:13–23, 39:6–15, 41:9–22; Doc. 221, p. 3).
Dr. Buechel does not need to be trained as a biomechanical engineer to
render his opinions, despite Defendants’ bald assertion. Dr. Buechel’s opinions
rest upon his training and experience, combined with the medical evidence
showing the size of lacerations caused by the shrapnel and the depth of
penetration. This is more than adequate to satisfy Daubert and its progeny. See,
e.g., Moskau v. United Seating & Mobility, LLC, No. 3:22-cv-1330-HES-JBT, 2024
WL 3341317, at *2–3 (M.D. Fla. May 10, 2024) (holding that physician’s medical
causation opinion was based on a sufficiently reliable methodology where the
physician reviewed medical records and imaging, examined the plaintiff, and the
injury was within the physician’s medical specialty); Price v. Carnival Cruise
Lines, No. 20-cv-20621-BLOOM/Louis, 2022 WL 951318, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30,
2022) (holding that the physician’s medical causation opinion was based on a
sufficiently reliable methodology where the physician relied solely on his review of
incident-related medical records and his experience in the relevant medical field).
II. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Medical Causation
Testimony of Dr. Paul Buechel (Doc. 198) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 13, 2025.
/ □□ / s
PAUL G.
UNITED STATES*DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties