Hewitt v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad
244 F. Supp. 3d 379
| S.D.N.Y. | 2017Background
- Donovan Hewitt, a former Metro-North coach/coach-cleaner (2007–2014), alleges repetitive and forceful cleaning tasks caused shoulder and elbow injuries requiring surgeries and therapy.
- Hewitt sued under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), claiming Metro-North failed to provide tools, training, supervision, and manpower to maintain a reasonably safe workplace.
- Plaintiff retained Dr. Robert Andres (bioengineer/ergonomist) to assess ergonomic risk factors and Metro-North’s mitigation practices; Andres reviewed records, depositions, literature, and conducted a site inspection (Oct. 5, 2015).
- Metro-North retained its own ergonomics expert and moved to exclude large portions of Andres’s testimony under Daubert; it also sought to exclude treating surgeon Dr. Victor Sasson (arguing Sasson relied on Andres) and to obtain partial summary judgment.
- The court reviewed admissibility under Rule 702/Daubert, considering the sufficiency of Andres’s facts/data, methodologies (e.g., NIOSH lifting equation, RULA), and whether he may offer legal conclusions.
- The court admitted Andres’s ergonomics opinions generally (excluding legal conclusions), denied motions to exclude Sasson, and denied partial summary judgment; Rule 403 disputes reserved for later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Andres’s ergonomics testimony under Daubert/Rule 702 | Andres is qualified; his opinions are based on deposition, interview, site inspection, literature, and accepted ergonomics methods | Andres did not observe employees performing tasks (except seat removal); relied on plaintiff’s statements and non-Metro-North videos; lacked quantitative measurement and industry-wide standards | Testimony admissible: facts/data and methods sufficient; criticisms go to weight, not admissibility; may not offer legal conclusions (causation/negligence) |
| Admissibility of Dr. Sasson’s medical/causation opinion | Sasson’s differential diagnosis and causation opinion are based on medical records and Andres’s report | Sasson’s opinion is tainted because it relied on Andres’s (allegedly inadmissible) opinions | Denied exclusion — because Andres’s testimony largely admissible, Sasson may testify |
| Partial summary judgment (all claims except seat removal) | Plaintiff has expert support (Andres and Sasson) for various ergonomic exposures beyond seat removal | Without Andres (and thus Sasson), plaintiff lacks evidence on non-seat-removal claims and summary judgment should be granted | Denied — genuine issues of material fact remain given admissible expert testimony |
| Scope of permissible expert testimony | Expert may explain ergonomic risks, mitigation measures, and whether employer followed industry practices | Defendant argues expert cannot opine absent an industry-wide standard and cannot use "safety" terminology or give ultimate legal conclusions | Expert may testify about risk factors and mitigation options and whether Metro-North implemented them; cannot testify to ultimate legal conclusions (negligence or that exposures caused injuries) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial-court gatekeeping standard for expert admissibility under Rule 702)
- Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 359 (2d Cir. 1992) (experts may not state ultimate legal conclusions)
- Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547 (2d Cir. 2017) (Daubert standard is permissive; weaknesses generally go to weight)
- Hardyman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 243 F.3d 255 (6th Cir. 2001) (ergonomics testimony admissible where specific studies may be lacking)
- Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005) (Daubert is a liberal standard for admissibility)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert factors apply to non-scientific expert testimony)
- Amorgianos v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (attacks on expert reliability go to cross-examination and weight)