A typical intersection, right angle crash (rotation-secondary impact-third impact with fixed object) leaves an unbelted driver with typical C6-C7 fracture and dislocation injuries, resulting in quad. paralysis. She is treated by the usual Dr`s and operated on accordingly. The two main Dr`s are the Neuro and the Ortho. There is an issue over the use-non use of seatbelts, as suggested in my previous posting "Possibility of severe injury even with seatbelt use?". Having done an analysis of the crash and the kinematics, and research on the possibility and probabilities of injury, it appears that there is some difference in opinions between myself and the doctors as to weather the injuries seen were created by rotational force only on the neck, lateral movement only, or a combination of these, the Dr`s are somewhat non commital about this issue. Obviously my concern is that as much as I can tesify on the kinematics, and the basics of the injuries, I am not a Neuro, nor an Ortho. This said, the Neuro and Ortho are not recon. experts nor specialists in Kinematics. I have had a discussion with the attorney and warned him of the need to be somewhat more technical in his approach to court in clarifying how the crash ocurred and therefore what effect this would have on the occupant, subsequently the injury. What are your thoughts on this issue...!?
I think it's a bit of a leap to say that orthopedic surgeons aren't experts in kinematics considering they spend inordinate periods of their lives studying the mechanisms of injuries and how to treat them.
Though it's true their degrees are professional, as opposed to academic, that doesn't minimize the fact they are scientists in their own right. I'm willing to bet that the average orthopedic surgeon has taken higher levels of mathematics and physics than the average reconstructionist.
That said, to my mind, courts of law have inherent in them a quest for truth in equal measure to their quest for justice. It would seem to me that more information is better than less. To that end, let all the people testify based on their own conscience and intellect leaving to the jury the task of parsing it up as they deem fit.
It's also worth noting that if the guy who spent ten years of his life earning his specialty in orthopedics can't parcel out with some degree of confidence the exact mechanism of injury, then reconstructionists are surely not better situated to tell him what happened. So, if the ambiguity can't be resolved between you and the surgeon, then it's time to call in someone who studies this type of thing to the exclusion of all the other types of things: the biomechanical engineer/physicist types.
It is, of course, largely speculative how a person moves inside a car during a crash when there is any claim of particularity or specificity. The interaction among the dependent and independent variables is too murky to be conclusive. Also, there simply are too many of these variables themselves - let alone how they interplay - to be precise. Even really good predictive software has trouble computing likely outcomes which actually happen.
__________________
Regards, Johnathan
"Ending a sentence with a preposition is a situation up with which I shall not put." - Sir Winston Churchill
The first part s to know a dset the bounds within which you feel you can shed some light on the matter. If you have been to lots of accidents and have seen the degrees of injury sustained then there is oportnity to relate experience with theory. If however your background is primarily theory and rely upon the reports of others to help say that in a given type of impact the following injuries may or may not arise, then being constrained is better. One of the problems with the medical witness as you rightly describe is that although many deal with the consequences of an impact, they rarely know the fine detail sufficient to be able to correlate injuries with impacts. Many medical may be limited to the medical notes which may includes views/ideas by people such as paraedics or others in the chain of medical history - so they may say 'T bone impact at about 50mph' as a means to assist the medical treatment, whether it was a real T bone or was at 30mph or 70mph. As the one who will sit in the box to answer te questions I would set my position first and then, once that is clearly decided, try and guide the lawyer on what and how they can evidence the issues they raise, either through your evidence or that of another.
Thanks for the replies, pretty much exactly what my thoughts were "a bit of a grey area"...and everyone should testify and let the court make the ultimate decision. thanks.
