Mathis v. Huff & Puff Trucking, Inc.
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9181
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- On Feb 18, 2008, Stewart (a semi‑tractor trailer driver for Huff & Puff) rear‑ended Mathis’s tow truck; Stewart was found 100% at fault.
- Mathis had preexisting spinal degenerative disease and prior surgeries; post‑crash care initially diagnosed cervical, thoracic, and lumbar sprains and conservative treatment was prescribed.
- Mathis stopped regular specialty care for ~2 years while working strenuous jobs, then returned and later underwent a two‑level lumbar fusion in 2012.
- At an 8‑day bench trial, Mathis claimed permanent spinal injury, MTBI, emotional distress, ongoing care, and lost future earnings; defendants presented neurosurgical, neuropsychological, and biomechanical experts disputing permanency and MTBI causation.
- The district court found Mathis’s spinal injuries were temporary (resolved by mid‑2009), rejected his MTBI claim, and awarded $145,582 in damages. Mathis moved for a new trial alleging (inter alia) an undisclosed law‑clerk conflict; the court denied the motion.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: it found no clear error in the factual findings, deemed Mathis’s objection to the biomechanical expert forfeited, and held the alleged clerk conflict did not warrant a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether spinal injuries were permanent or temporary | Mathis: accident materially aggravated asymptomatic degenerative disease; Dr. Beer’s differential diagnosis shows permanency | Defendants: records and experts show only temporary musculoskeletal sprains; later pathology attributable to degeneration/age | Court: No clear error — injuries were temporary and resolved by mid‑2009; affirmed |
| Whether Mathis suffered a mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) | Mathis: neuropsych testing and symptom history (memory gap, personality changes, stutter) support MTBI diagnosis | Defendants: testing and contemporaneous records do not meet MTBI criteria; deficits explained by pain, depression, sleep; biomechanical forces insufficient | Court: No clear error — credited defense experts; found no MTBI; affirmed |
| Admissibility/scope of Dr. Hayes’s biomechanical testimony | Mathis: biomechanical engineer should not opine on specific‑person causation beyond general thresholds (Smelser) | Defendants: Hayes was presented as an expert and testified; no timely Daubert objection was made | Court: Forfeited — Mathis failed to object at trial; appellate review waived; affirmed |
| Law clerk conflict / § 455(a) appearance of impartiality | Mathis: clerk’s husband monitored trial for AIG (insurer) and relationship was undisclosed, creating conflict/appearance of partiality requiring new trial | Defendants: husband did not represent a party, had an attenuated monitoring role; clerk was screened and performed only ministerial tasks after disclosure | Court: No abuse of discretion — no actual Canon 3(F) conflict and no reasonable‑person appearance of partiality given screening and lack of substantive clerk involvement; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Holdeman v. Devine, 572 F.3d 1190 (10th Cir.) (bench‑trial findings reviewed for clear error)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gate‑keeping on expert admissibility)
- United States v. Nacchio, 555 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir.) (two‑step Daubert analysis for qualification and reliability)
- Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co., 215 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir.) (failure to object to expert testimony waives appellate review)
- Hall v. Small Bus. Admin., 695 F.2d 175 (5th Cir.) (law clerk’s continued participation created appearance problem requiring vacatur)
- Hamid v. Price Waterhouse, 51 F.3d 1411 (9th Cir.) (screening and remoteness of law‑firm connection can defeat appearance‑of‑partiality claim)