Allen v. Gierstorfer, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Superior Court of the State of Delaware Jan R. Jurden New Castle County Courthouse 500 North King Street, Suite 10400 Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3733 Telephone (302) 255-0665 Judge Date Submitted: April 2, 2008 Date Decided: October 24, 2008 Stephen B. Potter, Esq. Potter, Carmine & Associates 840 N. Union Street P.O. Box 30409 Wilmington, DE 19805 Kenneth M. Doss, Esq. Casarino, Christman & Shalk, P.A. 800 N. King Street, Suite 200 P.O. Box 1276 Wilmington, DE 19899 Louis J. Rizzo, Jr., Esq. Reger, Rizzo, Kavulich & Darnall 1001 Jefferson Plaza Suite 202 Wilmington, DE 19801 RE: Ronald S. Allen v. Brendan F. Gierstorfer, Newark Concrete, and Material Acquisition, LLC C.A. No. 07C-01-055 Upon Plaintiff s Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. Robert O. Gordon GRANTED IN PART, DEFERRED IN PART The Court has reviewed Plaintiff s Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. Robert Gordon, and the Defendants opposition thereto. The Court has a concern about Dr. Gordon s opinion that by two and a half months post accident the Plaintiff would have recovered from any soft tissue injuries ¦. 1 1 Report of Robert O. Gordon, M.D. dated January 16, 2008; Ex. A-3 to Plaintiff s Motion in Limine to Exclude the Testimony of Robert O. Gordon, M.D. in Full or in Part; Docket Item ( D.I. ) 93. 1 This opinion runs afoul of the Court s ruling in Crowhorn v. Boyle, 2 and is therefore excluded. The Court also has a concern about the relevance and reliability of certain other of Dr. Gordon s opinions. For example, Dr. Gordon has opined that the diagnosis of annular tear made by a radiologist is a totally impossible diagnosis to make ¦based on an MRI scan. 3 The Court is not satisfied at this juncture that Dr. Gordon is qualified to interpret MRI studies. Given the Court s concerns, the Court will allow Plaintiff to conduct voir dire of Dr. Gordon prior to his direct testimony at trial and will determine the admissibility of his other opinions at that time. Consequently, Plaintiff s Motion is GRANTED in Part and DEFERRED in Part. IT IS SO ORDERED. Jan R. Jurden, Judge 2 3 Crowhorn v. Boyle, 793 A.2d 422 (Del. Super. Ct. 2002). D.I. 93, Ex. A-3 at 3. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
