Minnesota Courts Uphold Introduction of DTI Evidence
Two separate courts in Minnesota have upheld the introduction of testimony regarding abnormalities found on diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). In the case of Nelson v. BNSF Railway Company, Court file number: 27‑CV‑12‑9171, October 1, 2013, defendants filed a motion in limine to bar the testimony of Dr. Joseph Wu, a neuro imaging expert. Dr. Woo interpreted a DTI of plaintiff and concluded that the DTI findings were consistent with a mild traumatic brain injury. The trial court rejected defendant’s motion, permitting Dr. Wu to testify and permitting plaintiff to introduce the results of the DTI.
Similarly, in the matter of Nordstrom v. Fleet Farm of Menomonie, file number 82‑CV‑11‑5842 (District Court Tenth Judicial District, January 17, 2014), defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude all results of a diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) study and to preclude plaintiff’s experts from testify regarding the DTI. Like the case above, the district court denied defendants’ motion to preclude.
In Nordstrom, defendants argued that DTI was an experimental technique that was not generally accepted in the relevant medical community and that it lacked foundational reliability. The Court, noting that DTI was FDA approved and peer reviewed, found that DTI had been in clinical use for many years and was generally accepted in the scientific community as reliable and accurate.
In opposition, plaintiff argued that the DTI was being offered to show that damage has occurred to plaintiff’s brain. Plaintiff acknowledges that the DTI was not being used to show causation, but was being used in conjunction with other diagnostic tools to aid in a diagnosis. Defendants’ motion to exclude DTI evidence was denied.