Estate of Ford v. Eicher
250 P.3d 262
Colo.2011Background
- Estate sues Dr. Eicher and practice for birth injuries to Catherine Ford from shoulder dystocia during delivery.
- Two defense experts (Cooper and Ouzounian) endorsed to support the intrauterine contraction theory as a cause, opposing the Estate's excessive traction theory.
- Trial court precluded Cooper's and Ouzounian's causation testimony after a Shreck hearing, ruling it unreliable or non-testable.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding both experts' testimonies admissible under CRE 702 and criticizing the trial court's reliability analysis.
- Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the admissibility standard and the reliability determinations under CRE 702.
- Court holds the trial court used the wrong standard and affirms the court of appeals, admitting the intrauterine forces testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CRE 702, not reasonable medical probability, governs admissibility | Estate argues admissibility must follow CRE 702 framework. | Eicher argues standard should focus on reasonable medical probability per Ramirez. | CRE 702 applies; admissibility upheld. |
| Reliability of the intrauterine contraction theory generally | Estate supports theory as reasonably reliable given literature and practice. | Eicher contends theory is not testable/verifyable. | Theory found reasonably reliable under CRE 702. |
| Application of the theory to this case (Dr. Ouzounian) | Differential diagnosis linking intrauterine forces to injury is valid and reliable. | Trial court should not rely on untestable application. | Application grounded in scientific method; admissible. |
| Application of the theory to this case (Dr. Cooper) | Cooper's opinion, grounded in literature and clinical experience, is admissible. | Cooper's opinion should be excluded if not meeting medical probability standard. | Cooper's causation testimony admissible under CRE 702. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ramirez, 155 P.3d 371 (Colo. 2007) (expert testimony need not be rendered with reasonable probability or certainty)
- People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo. 2001) (cre 702 reliability and relevance; broad balancing factors)
- Luster v. Brinkman, 205 P.3d 410 (Colo.App. 2008) (admissibility of intrauterine forces theory supported in Colorado)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993) (reliability analysis as an admissibility gatekeeping function)
- United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1985) (factors guiding scientific testimony reliability)