Sadek v. Wesley

I concur with the majority that the trial court improperly precluded plaintiff’s experts’ testimony. I part ways with the majority, however, on the necessity for a hearing in this action. I believe that the court properly held a hearing to determine whether the opinion of plaintiffs expert—that is, the opinion that the collision caused plaintiffs stroke—was based on a proper foundation.

The majority’s conclusion that no Frye hearing was necessary rests on the notion that plaintiff need offer no expert opinion for the “unremarkable” premise that the physical trauma caused by the motor vehicle…