Karen Harbin sued Caleb Beau Roberts to recover damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end collision.1 Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Roberts. Harbin filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied, and this appeal followed. Harbin enumerates the following errors: 1 the trial court erred by denying her motion for new trial; 2 the trial court erred by substituting a senior judge to preside over the trial; and 3 the trial court erred “by showing manifest prejudice and bias” against her and in favor of Roberts during the trial. We affirm, for reasons that follow. Harbin filed suit against Roberts in April 2005. In May 2006, Roberts filed a Daubert 2 motion to exclude the testimony of one of Harbin’s experts, Dr. Arthur Koblasz, arguing in part that he was not qualified to offer an opinion regarding the cause and extent of Harbin’s injuries.3 The original judge recused in August 2006, and Judge Donald B. Howe was assigned to preside over the case. In October 2006, Judge Howe entered an order denying Roberts’s
motion, concluding that Dr. Koblasz’s opinions on this case are based on biomechanics. His claimed expertise as concerns this case appears to relate to the mechanical cause of injuries to the plaintiff’s spine as opposed to a medical diagnosis and treatment plan. Defendants’ objection to the entire testimony of Dr. Koblasz is misplaced. Objections to opinions beyond the scope of the expert’s field can be made at trial. Defendants’ objections to the factual basis for Dr. Koblasz’s conclusions and his methodology in forming them can be addressed by impeachment, cross-examination, and rebuttal. Judge Howe became ill before trial, and Judge Arthur W. Fudger, a senior judge, was appointed to preside over the trial. During Harbin’s direct examination of Dr. Koblasz, Roberts objected on several grounds, including that Dr. Koblasz’s opinion was based solely on his review of photographs of Harbin’s vehicle and her medical records. Judge Fudger ultimately sustained the objections, concluding that because Dr. Koblasz was not a medical doctor and did not do any testing or investigation of Harbin or her vehicle, he was not qualified to testify as to the cause of her injuries. Judge Fudger did not, however, prohibit Dr. Koblasz from testifying about any examination he made of Harbin or about any testing or calculations he performed on her vehicle.
