Generally, it is defendants that move to attack the admissibility of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) asserting that this objective neurodiagnostic test fails to meet either the Daubert or Frye standard. Most recently, a plaintiff went on the offensive, filing its own motion for an order precluding defendant’s expert from denying at trial the general acceptance and reliability of diffusion tensor imaging and from denying the existence of non-hemorrhagic brain white-matter lesions. Defendant’s expert witness disclosure asserted that defendant’s expert was expected to testify that DTI “has not been recognized as a reliable technique to be utilized on an individual patient due to lack of any standardized and general accepted methods for acquiring, analyzing and interpreting DTI data.” Defendant’s also cross-moved for an order seeking to preclude the admission at trial the results of the DTI and precluding any of plaintiff’s expert witnesses from testifying regarding those results.
The court, relying on the scientific articles submitted by plaintiff, coupled with the fact that numerous courts in various jurisdictions, as well as in New York, have admitted DTI results in evidence, established that there is general acceptance of DTI in the medical community as a means of diagnosing traumatic brain injury. The court denied plaintiff’s motion with regard to defense expert’s opinions regarding the existence of non-hemorrhagic brain white-matter lesions finding that issue was based explored on cross-examination.
The case citation is Klipper vs. Liberty Helicopters, Inc., Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York: Part 10, Index No. 110711-2003.