In Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 48 (published July 24, 2008), the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the often dubious role of so-called "biomechanical engineers" as experts and concluded that (1) the district court below abused its discretion when it allowed a physician with an engineering background to testify as a biomechanical expert against a personal injury plaintiff because, among other reasons, the testimony did not assist the jury in understanding the evidence as the testimony was not based on a reliable methodology; (2) prejudice stemming from errors in the admission of evidence bearing upon a damage claim requires reversal when the error substantially affects the rights of the complaining party on appeal; and (3) such an error substantially affects those rights when the appellant establishes, based upon a sufficient appellate record, the reasonable probability of a different result in the absence of the error.
The Court's entire decision can be readHERE.