Christopher Bittola and Danna Bittola, Individually and on behalf of their minor child, Alexander Bittola v. Nekita Harmon, Old Republic Insurance Company, Gelco Corporation and 3M Company

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER BITTOLA AND NO. 2022 CW 0666 DANNA BITTOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR CHILD, ALEXANDER BITTOLA VERSUS NEKITA HARMON, OLD REPUBLIC SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 INSURANCE COMPANY, GELCO CORPORATION AND 3M COMPANY In Re: Danna Bittola, individually and on behalf of her minor child, Alexander Bittola, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 2018-10797. BEFORE : WELCH, THERIOT, AND LANIER, JJ. WRIT GRANTED. The district court’s May 16, 2022 judgment denying the “Motion in Limine Regarding the Testimony of Wilson C. Hayes, PH.D” filed by Plaintiff, Danna Bittola, individually and on behalf of her minor child, Alexander Bittola, is reversed. Dr. Hayes did not interview the plaintiffs; did not know the plaintiffs’ body positions at the time of the accident; did not inspect the actual vehicles involved in the collision; did not speak to a damage appraiser; and calculated the impact of the collision on the plaintiffs’ bodies based in part on photographs, vehicle repair estimates, and descriptions of the accident by the parties. While he did refer to photographs of the plaintiffs’ vehicle, he did not have any photographs of the defendants’ vehicle. Dr. Hayes also failed to review the deposition testimony of any of the doctors who treated or examined the plaintiffs. As a result, Dr. Hayes admitted that he made numerous assumptions to complete his calculations Supporting his conclusion that the injuries the plaintiffs allegedly sustained were unlikely given the force of impact of the collision. Therefore, we find that the majority of Dr. Hayes’s testimony is more prejudicial than probative, as it could lead the jury to reach improper conclusions of fact based on these assumptions. See Godchaux v. Peerless Ins. Co., 20131083 (La. App. 3d Cir. 6/4/14), 140 So.3d 817, 824-25 , writ denied, 2014-1411 (La. 10/3/14), 149 So.3d 801 . For these reasons, we find the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion in limine. Accordingly, the motion in limine filed by Danna Bittola, individually and on behalf of her minor child, Alexander Bittola, is granted, and we hereby exclude Dr. Hayes’s testimony at trial. JEW WIL Theriot, J., concurs. See Blair v. Coney, 2019-00795 (La. 4/3/20), 340 So.3d 775 . COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT Gon) DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT