Preview
Filing # 181961853 E-Filed 09/16/2023 11:31:04 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: 2020 CA 001106 AN
XIAO SHENG YUE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CYNTHIA M FOERSTER AND CHAPP,
INC.,
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF FILING
DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF IAN M. ZELLER, Ph.D.
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, XIAO SHENG YUE, by and through the undersigned
attorneys, and hereby gives Notice of the Filing with the Court of the Deposition Transcript of IAN
M. ZELLER, Ph.D. dated November 19, 2021. Said deposition transcript is for use at trial.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 16th day of September, 2023, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of Courts by using the using the Florida Courts eFiling Portal, which will
send a copy via email to: Jorge Santeiro, Jr., Esquire, Law Offices of Santeiro & Garrison, 6300
University Parkway, Ste 101, Sarasota, FL 34240, via email at jsanteiro@fcci-group.com;
ssmith5@fcci-group.com; legalservice@fcci-group.com.
/s/ Manuel Stefan, Esq.
Manuel “Manny” Stefan, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 0103389
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
4495 South Semoran Blvd.
Orlando, FL 32822
Telephone No.: (407) 452-6982
Facsimile No.: (407) 572-0124
Primary email: MStefan@forthepeople.com
Secondary email: cvictor@forthepeople.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
1
• • • •IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
• • • • • • • • IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
•
• • • • • • • • • •CASE NO.:• 2020 CA 001106 AN
•
• • •XIAO SHENG YUE,
•
• • • • • • • Plaintiff,
•
• • •vs.
•
• • •CYNTHIA M. FOERSTER
• • •AND CHAPP, INC.,
• • • • • • • Defendants.
• • •___________________________/
•
•
• • • • • • REMOTE DEPOSITION OF IAN M. ZELLER, PH.D
•
• • • • • • • • DATE:• • • Friday, November 19, 2021
• • • • • • • • TIME:• • • 9:37 a.m. to 12:33 p.m.
• • • • • • • • PLACE:• • •All parties appeared
• • • • • • • • • • • • • •remotely via Zoom/VTC
•
•
• • • • •Stenographically Reported By:• Andrea C. Rivera
• • • • • •Professional Court Reporter, Notary Public
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•1• • • • • • • • • • •REMOTE APPEARANCES
•2
•3• •ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
•4• • • • BY:• MANUEL STEFAN, ESQUIRE
• • • • • • • •PAOLA RAMOS, ESQUIRE
•5• • • • MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
• • • • • 20 North Orange Avenue, 16th Floor
•6• • • • Orlando, Florida 32801
• • • • • 407-420-1414
•7• • • • mstefan@forthepeople.com
•8
• • •ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
•9
• • • • • BY:• JORGE SANTEIRO, JR., ESQUIRE
10• • • • Santeiro & Garrison
• • • • • 6300 University Parkway
11• • • • Sarasota, Florida 34249
• • • • • 941-907-7895
12• • • • jsanteiro@fcci-group.com
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
•1• • • • • • • • • • •INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS
•2
•3• •DEPOSITION OF IAN M. ZELLER, PH.D
•4• •Direct Examination by Mr. Stefan• • • • • • • • • • •5
•5• •Cross Examination by Mr. Santeiro• • • • • • • • • 120
•6• •Redirect Examination by Mr. Stefan• • • • • • • • •122
•7• •Certificate of Oath• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 125
•8• •Certificate of Reporter• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 126
•9• •Witness Review Letter• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 127
10• •Errata Sheet• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •128
11
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -----
12
13• • • • • • • • • • •PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS
14
• • •Number• •Description• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •Page
15
16• • 1• • • •Entire file• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 17
17• •(Reporter’s note - file was retained by all counsel
• • •involved, and a listing of file contents are attached.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
•1• • • • • • Proceedings taken before Andrea C. Rivera,
•2• •Professional Court Reporter and Notary Public, in and
•3• •for the State of Florida at Large in the above cause.
•4• • • • • • • • • • • • - - - - - - -
•5• •THEREUPON:
•6• • • • • • • The following proceeding occurred:
•7• • • • • • THE COURT REPORTER:• The attorneys
•8• • • •participating in this deposition acknowledge that I
•9• • • •am not physically present in the room and that I
10• • • •will be reporting this proceeding remotely.• They
11• • • •further acknowledge that, in lieu of an oath
12• • • •administered in person, I will administer the oath
13• • • •remotely.• This arrangement is pursuant to the
14• • • •Florida Supreme Court Administrative Order No.
15• • • •AOSC-20-23.• The parties and their counsel consent
16• • • •to this arrangement and waive any objections to
17• • • •this manner of reporting.• Please indicate your
18• • • •agreement by stating your name and your agreement
19• • • •on the record.
20• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• Counsel for plaintiff, Manny
21• • • •Stefan, in agreement, on the record.
22• • • • • • MR. SANTEIRO:• Jorge Santeiro for Chapp, Inc.
23• • • •and Cynthia Foerster, and I agree.
24• • • • • • THE COURT REPORTER:• Dr. Zeller, please raise
25• • • •your right hand.
•1• • • • • • • • • • IAN M. ZELLER, PH.D,
•2• • • •having been first duly sworn or affirmed to tell
•3• • • the truth, was examined and testified as follows:
•4• • • • • • THE WITNESS:• I do.
•5• • • • • • THE COURT REPORTER:• Thank you.
•6• • • • • • • • • • •DIRECT EXAMINATION
•7• •BY MR. STEFAN:
•8• • • •Q• • Dr. Zeller, do you hear me okay?
•9• • • •A• • I can.• Can you hear me okay?
10• • • •Q• • I can.• Could you state your name for the
11• •record and spell your first and last name?
12• • • •A• • Ian Michael Zeller.• First name Ian, I-A-N,
13• •last name Zeller, Z-E-L-L-E-R.
14• • • •Q• • All right.• Dr. Zeller, my understanding is
15• •you are Dr. Zeller.• So I’m just going to probably refer
16• •to you as Dr. Zeller, is that okay?
17• • • •A• • Totally good with me.
18• • • •Q• • Okay.• That’s a very competent attorney on the
19• •other side there, Mr. Santeiro.• So I’m sure you’ve
20• •received, at some point, some instructions or rules in
21• •regards to how depositions work.• My understanding is
22• •also this is not your first deposition, correct?
23• • • •A• • That is correct.
24• • • •Q• • All right.• So I always like to go with some
25• •basic ground rules.• First and foremost, you are not in
•1• •jail here in any way, shape or form.• You are free to
•2• •move about the cabin, take breaks so often as you need.
•3• •The only thing that I ask is that if I have a pending
•4• •question, you answer that question before we take a
•5• •break.• Fair enough?
•6• • • •A• • That’s fair.
•7• • • •Q• • All right.• We are off to a good start.• The
•8• •second thing I always ask is for verbal responses.• No
•9• •nodding of the head, no uh-huh, uh-uhs.• That wonderful
10• •court reporter that we have here, Ms. Andrea, does a
11• •great job, but she cannot take nods of the head.• Fair
12• •enough?
13• • • •A• • That’s fair.
14• • • •Q• • All right.• Last thing is if you do not
15• •understand the question, I need you to tell me to
16• •clarify it or I could re-ask it, whatever needs to be
17• •done.• If you answer a question, I’m going to assume you
18• •understood the question.• Fair enough?
19• • • •A• • Perfect.
20• • • •Q• • All right.• Where are you physically located
21• •right now, Dr. Zeller?
22• • • •A• • At my house.
23• • • •Q• • And I don’t need full address but just city
24• •and state.
25• • • •A• • Palm Coast, Florida.
•1• • • •Q• • Okay.• And do you work out of an office as
•2• •well?
•3• • • •A• • I do.
•4• • • •Q• • And where is that office located?
•5• • • •A• • Altamonte Springs, Florida.
•6• • • •Q• • And do you have your own business or do you
•7• •work for somebody?
•8• • • •A• • I work for a company.
•9• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in the capacity for which you are
10• •here for today, what is that?
11• • • •A• • I’m not sure if I completely understand your
12• •question.• As far as capacity do you mean what’s my
13• •role?• I’m not sure if I completely understand.
14• • • •Q• • So obviously you’re an expert in this matter,
15• •correct?
16• • • •A• • Correct.
17• • • •Q• • What’s your expert capacity role in this
18• •matter?
19• • • •A• • I’m a biomechanical engineer.
20• • • •Q• • Okay.• So you’re a biomech or a biomechanical,
21• •I’ll use those interchangeably.• Do you have anything
22• •against me doing that?
23• • • •A• • I have no objections to that.
24• • • •Q• • And so you work as a biomechanical engineer,
25• •correct?
•1• • • •A• • Correct.
•2• • • •Q• • All right.• So who do you work for?
•3• • • •A• • Rimkus Consulting Group, that’s R-I-M-K-U-S.
•4• • • •Q• • All right.• And in regards to the matter for
•5• •which we are here for today, Mr. Xiao Sheng Yue versus
•6• •Cynthia Foerster and Chapp, Inc., you are testifying on
•7• •behalf of the defendants; is that correct?
•8• • • •A• • Correct.
•9• • • •Q• • All right.• Background information really
10• •quick, Doc.• Undergrad degree?
11• • • •A• • Clemson University, material science
12• •engineering with a minor in mathematical sciences.
13• • • •Q• • All right.• Any advanced degrees after that?
14• • • •A• • Yes.• I have a master’s degree from the
15• •University of Penn State in biomedical engineering, and
16• •I have a Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee in
17• •biomedical engineering with a concentration in
18• •biomechanics.
19• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• Are you guys getting feedback?
20• • • • • • THE COURT REPORTER:• Yes, that’s what I was
21• • • •just going to say.
22• • • • • • MR. SANTEIRO:• I am, too.
23• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• Let’s go off the record.
24• • • • • • (A discussion off the record was held.)
25• •BY MR. STEFAN:
•1• • • •Q• • When did you receive your Ph.D., Doc?
•2• • • •A• • 2018, May.
•3• • • •Q• • Let’s go back, because I did get some
•4• •feedback.• What was your Ph.D. in, biomedical and
•5• •something else?
•6• • • •A• • Biomedical engineering with a concentration in
•7• •biomechanics.
•8• • • •Q• • And how long -- or what is your position at
•9• •Rimkus?
10• • • •A• • I am a senior consultant.
11• • • •Q• • Okay.• And how long have you been at Rimkus?
12• • • •A• • Since 2018, so approximately three and a half
13• •years.
14• • • •Q• • And what exactly is it that a senior
15• •consultant does at Rimkus?
16• • • •A• • So in general we do consulting, and I just
17• •generally describe consulting as answering questions.
18• •Sorry, the feedback is back.
19• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• It is a little bit.• Can we go
20• • • •off the record real quick, Andrea?
21• • • • • • THE COURT REPORTER:• Yes.
22• • • • • • (A short recess was taken.)
23• •BY MR. STEFAN:
24• • • •Q• • We had a little connectivity issue there, Doc.
25• •You can hear me fine now, right?
•1• • • •A• • That is correct.
•2• • • •Q• • Okay.• We were going -- I think I was asking
•3• •you what -- you told me you were a senior consultant at
•4• •Rimkus since 2018, correct?
•5• • • •A• • That is correct.
•6• • • •Q• • All right.• And what exactly are your duties
•7• •and responsibilities as a senior consultant for Rimkus?
•8• • • •A• • So there are a number of different things.
•9• •Some of it is administrative stuff dealing with
10• •paperwork, dealing with kind of the general stuff that
11• •you’d expect in most office settings.• But in addition
12• •to that, the other thing I do is working with clients,
13• •answering questions, performing analyses and essentially
14• •testifying, if need be, to the opinions that I come up
15• •with.
16• • • •Q• • Okay.• You said working with clients and then
17• •doing obviously whatever the client requires of that,
18• •and analysis and whatever else work that you get hired
19• •to do, correct?
20• • • •A• • Correct.• And to answer their questions is a
21• •good way I describe that.
22• • • •Q• • All right.• Who would be the clients that
23• •typically hire you?
24• • • •A• • So it depends.• Sometimes it’s companies,
25• •sometimes it’s municipalities, and other times it could
•1• •be attorneys.
•2• • • •Q• • Okay.• What kind of companies?
•3• • • •A• • It could be insurance companies.• It could be
•4• •companies looking at some sort of failure analysis.• So
•5• •it really runs the gamut between insurance companies and
•6• •just, you know, general companies.• We’ll just say
•7• •companies that just need questions answered essentially.
•8• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards to your education, do
•9• •you have a medical degree?
10• • • •A• • No.• I do not have an M.D.
11• • • •Q• • Okay.• You don’t have an M.D. or a D.O.,
12• •correct?
13• • • •A• • Correct.• I have a Ph.D.
14• • • •Q• • All right.• You don’t have a nursing degree of
15• •any kind?
16• • • •A• • Correct.
17• • • •Q• • In regards to the standpoint of today, will
18• •you be giving any medical opinions?
19• • • •A• • No.
20• • • •Q• • Okay.• Any medical causation opinions?
21• • • •A• • No medical causation opinions.
22• • • •Q• • Okay.• Basically how long have you been doing
23• •the kind of work that you were hired to do here?
24• • • •A• • I would say approximately -- well, it depends.
25• •When you talk specifically about forensics and this sort
•1• •of investigational work, it’s going to be about four
•2• •years.• If you want kind of biomechanics in general,
•3• •that’s probably closer to ten.
•4• • • •Q• • All right.• What were you hired to do in this
•5• •case?
•6• • • •A• • I was hired to do a biomechanical analysis.
•7• • • •Q• • And was it only biomechanical or also any kind
•8• •of accident reconstruction type of analysis?
•9• • • •A• • So generally part of the biomechanical
10• •analysis is going to cater toward a vehicle accident
11• •reconstruction to the extent which one is required.• So
12• •there is some vehicle accident reconstruction components
13• •to the analysis I did.
14• • • •Q• • Okay.• Did you look at this case from a
15• •medical standpoint at all?
16• • • •A• • When you say from a medical standpoint, no. I
17• •looked at it from a biomechanical standpoint.
18• • • •Q• • Okay.• And did you look at it from the
19• •standpoint of whether my client, Mr. Yue, was able to be
20• •injured due to the forces involved in this case as you
21• •see them?
22• • • •A• • So in general what I looked at were the
23• •mechanical conditions from the accident, the forces
24• •involved, and whether or not that’s consistent with the
25• •mechanisms of injury or the types of injuries that were
•1• •claimed.
•2• • • •Q• • Okay.• So are you making a medical opinion as
•3• •it relates to causation of injuries in this case?
•4• • • •A• • No.• I’m making a general opinion as far as
•5• •the consistency of injuries in this case.
•6• • • •Q• • Okay.• I have a report here in regards to this
•7• •matter.• I believe this is your report.• The report is
•8• •approximately -- if I don’t include all the, I guess,
•9• •attached exhibits -- apparently the report I have here
10• •is about eighteen pages -- seventeen, eighteen pages; is
11• •that correct?
12• • • •A• • I have no reason to dispute that.• That sounds
13• •correct.
14• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards to, I guess, you know,
15• •the case at hand, what are your opinions in regards to
16• •this matter?
17• • • •A• • So there are a few of them.• Do you just want
18• •me to go ahead and list them all?
19• • • •Q• • Yeah.
20• • • •A• • So in general, and these are more or less
21• •summarized in the report as well, is that we have airbag
22• •control module data from the Chevrolet in this case.
23• •And that airbag control module measured a speed change
24• •of five miles per hour over the course of -- I want to
25• •say it was eighty-six milliseconds or something like
•1• •that.• So it had a delta-V of five miles per hour.• That
•2• •contributes to a delta-V of less than seven miles per
•3• •hour on the Infiniti.• And then factoring in -- you
•4• •know, that’s the reconstruction component.
•5• • • • • • So based on that, the lumbar loading -- lumbar
•6• •and cervical loading for the occupant of the Infiniti
•7• •would be within the expectation of activities of daily
•8• •living.• There would be no mechanism associated with
•9• •structural disc changes as a result of the dynamics of
10• •the accident.• There would be no mechanism for
11• •meaningful head acceleration as a result of the
12• •accident.• And I think the last thing I included on
13• •there was that there’s no basis for a vascular event, at
14• •least there is no mechanical basis for a vascular event
15• •as a result of the accident.
16• • • •Q• • I’m going to go back really quick.• Is it your
17• •testimony that there’s no mechanism for -- no mechanism
18• •of injury for a cervical spine injury?
19• • • •A• • So no mechanism of injury for a structural
20• •disc change.• You may have the mechanisms for a cervical
21• •sprain, and I believe that’s one of my conclusions
22• •that’s in the original report.• You may have the
23• •potential for overexertion of soft tissue in that
24• •region.• So the mechanisms for cervical strain would
25• •conceivably be there; but when it comes to the
•1• •mechanisms for structural disc changes, herniations,
•2• •bulges, those would be inconsistent with the mechanics
•3• •of the accident for the lumbar and cervical regions.
•4• • • •Q• • Are you saying that it’s impossible for
•5• •Mr. Yue to have suffered a disc herniation in his
•6• •cervical spine as a result of this motor vehicle crash
•7• •on September 11th, 2018?
•8• • • •A• • Nothing is impossible.• From a mechanics
•9• •perspective, there isn’t a mechanical basis for the way
10• •that injury happens being present with the dynamics of
11• •the accident.
12• • • •Q• • You cut out at the very end, something about
13• •the dynamics of the accident.• I apologize.
14• • • •A• • No worries.• There is -- sorry, I’m trying to
15• •think back to exactly what I said.• So nothing is
16• •impossible, but when it comes to the mechanisms
17• •associated or the way that these sorts of injuries
18• •happen, specifically the disc herniations, et cetera --
19• •or, I’m sorry, stick with the disc herniations, the
20• •mechanisms or the mechanical explanations for those are
21• •inconsistent with the mechanics of the accident or the
22• •dynamics of the accident.• I think that’s -- I’m not
23• •sure how I phrased it before.
24• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards to mechanism of injury
25• •for the lumbar spine, the low back, are you saying it’s
•1• •impossible for Mr. Yue to have suffered a lumbar spine
•2• •injury as a result of this motor vehicle crash dated
•3• •September 11th, 2018?
•4• • • •A• • Again, nothing is impossible; but when it
•5• •comes to the forces involved, they would be within the
•6• •expectation of activity of daily living where they’d be
•7• •comparable to other activities experienced throughout
•8• •the day.
•9• • • •Q• • Okay.• Is it your testimony that it’s
10• •impossible for Mr. Yue to have suffered a brain injury
11• •as a result of this motor vehicle crash dated
12• •September 11th, 2018?
13• • • •A• • Again, nothing is impossible; but when it
14• •comes to the mechanics and the forces and the
15• •accelerations that are associated with traumatic brain
16• •injuries, the forces from the accident are inconsistent
17• •with published values and literature associated with
18• •such injuries.
19• • • •Q• • In regards to -- I think I’m going to break
20• •your opinions down.• I have page two of your report
21• •here.• It says conclusions at the top, section two.• Do
22• •you see that?
23• • • •A• • Yes, sir.• I’m pulling it up just so I can
24• •make sure I’m looking at the same thing, literally on
25• •the same page.
•1• • • •Q• • All right.• You got it in front of you?
•2• • • •A• • I do.
•3• • • •Q• • Okay.• Doc, before we go, this was a subpoena
•4• •duces tecum, you were asked to bring a copy of your
•5• •file.• You brought it before.• This is kind of really a
•6• •continued restart of your prior deposition.• You brought
•7• •your whole file again with you?
•8• • • •A• • Yes.• I can shoot the link over if need be;
•9• •but yeah, nothing has changed since the previous
10• •sending.
11• • • •Q• • Okay.
12• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• I will attach his entire file as
13• • • •Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
14• • • • • • (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 was marked for
15• • • •identification.)
16• •BY MR. STEFAN:
17• • • •Q• • In regards to that report, I have a cover
18• •sheet at the top.• It’s basically Rimkus Consulting
19• •Group and it says report of findings.• Am I seeing that
20• •correct?
21• • • •A• • Yes, I believe that sounds correct.
22• • • •Q• • All right.• And then I see that you’re signed
23• •on on this front page, Ian M. Zeller and Ph.D., senior
24• •consultant, correct, on the very first page?
25• • • •A• • That’s correct.
•1• • • •Q• • And underneath it says that Richard V.
•2• •Baratta, Ph.D, P.E., Florida licensed engineer also
•3• •undersigned on this?
•4• • • •A• • That’s correct.
•5• • • •Q• • All right.• And it says here he’s titled
•6• •senior vice president.• Who is about Mr. Baratta?
•7• • • •A• • So he is essentially the vice president of the
•8• •division.• And the reason his name is on there is
•9• •when -- you know, years ago -- I think this report was
10• •from 2018.• Back then I used to have whoever the
11• •technical reviewer was would do the signature on the
12• •report as well.• So he is essentially my technical
13• •reviewer at that time, and that’s why he’s undersigned
14• •on the report as well.
15• • • •Q• • Okay.• So at the time of this report you did
16• •not have your Ph.D. or you did?
17• • • •A• • No, I did have my Ph.D. at the time of that
18• •report.
19• • • •Q• • So then what was the reason for him having to
20• •undersign it?
21• • • •A• • That’s just the way we did it back then, the
22• •technical reviewer undersigned the report.
23• • • •Q• • Okay.• Did he do actually any hands-on work
24• •with this?
25• • • •A• • No.• He just simply reviewed the work that I
•1• •did and basically served as quality control.
•2• • • •Q• • Okay.• And then I believe the date of the
•3• •report is at the very bottom.• You tell me if I’m wrong,
•4• •but I have October 25th, 2018; is that correct?
•5• • • •A• • That looks correct, yes.
•6• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards -- that’s when you
•7• •basically undersigned it and said hey, this thing’s
•8• •ready to go out the door, you completed it and sent it,
•9• •right?
10• • • •A• • I’m sorry, can you say that one more time?
11• • • •Q• • That date, October 25th, 2018, is when you
12• •signed it and sent it off?
13• • • •A• • That’s correct.
14• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards to that, since then have
15• •you made any changes, amendments to the report?
16• • • •A• • So, no.• I did receive additional
17• •documentation, specifically medical records were
18• •reviewed in addition, which were not reviewed at the
19• •time the report was written; but there is not a
20• •supplemental report written since then.
21• • • •Q• • All right.• And what additional records did
22• •you receive?
23• • • •A• • So if I remember correctly, at the time of
24• •this -- at the time this report was written I had not
25• •reviewed deposition transcripts, nor had I reviewed
•1• •really any medical records.• So those are reflected in
•2• •my summary, but those were not reflected in the original
•3• •writing of this report.
•4• • • •Q• • Okay.• So in regards to deposition -- so since
•5• •the report you’ve only received additional medical
•6• •records and depo transcripts, deposition transcripts,
•7• •correct?
•8• • • •A• • As I sit here, if I recall correctly, yes.
•9• •There may have been additional legal documents, whether
10• •it’s interrogatories, the complaint, et cetera; but in
11• •general as far as substantive materials to the case are
12• •concerned, those are the only two things that come to
13• •mind.
14• • • •Q• • Okay.• Which deposition transcripts did you
15• •receive?
16• • • •A• • I believe Mr. Yue, as well as -- I think that
17• •was it.• I think it was only Mr. Yue.
18• • • •Q• • All right.• Did you happen to receive a
19• •deposition transcript of a biomechanical by the name of
20• •Dr. Booeshaghi?
21• • • •A• • I did not.
22• • • • • • MR. SANTEIRO:• Manny, just for the record, I
23• • • •don’t believe we received that transcript.• So I
24• • • •might be wrong, but I’m looking at my file, just
25• • • •for the record.
•1• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• I don’t think I have either,
•2• • • •Jorge.• I didn’t know if somehow you paid extra
•3• • • •money and got it expedited.
•4• •BY MR. STEFAN:
•5• • • •Q• • Other than the plaintiff’s deposition
•6• •transcript, have you reviewed any other deposition
•7• •transcripts?
•8• • • •A• • I don’t believe so, no.
•9• • • •Q• • Okay.• And then additional medical records
10• •that you received after this report was initially done
11• •would have been which records?
12• • • •A• • Basically all of the records I have were
13• •received after this original report was written.• So I
14• •don’t remember as I sit here exactly which records those
15• •were, but I can tell you that in the provided folder
16• •that I sent over to you, everything contained in there
17• •was received after the report was written.
18• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards to the medical records
19• •that you received, were there MRIs in there?
20• • • •A• • I believe there were MRI reports.• There were
21• •not films, but I don’t review films.• So I believe the
22• •reports, but the MRI films themselves were not contained
23• •in those records, if I remember correctly.
24• • • •Q• • Do you opine any difference than what is in
25• •the medical records in regards to Mr. Yue’s medical
•1• •diagnoses?
•2• • • •A• • I have no intention of refuting any diagnoses
•3• •from those records, purely to contextualize the
•4• •biomechanical analysis.
•5• • • •Q• • Okay.• Do you contest any of the
•6• •symptomatology which Mr. Yue reported to any of the
•7• •medical doctors?
•8• • • •A• • No.
•9• • • •Q• • And then when you said MRI reports, sometimes
10• •we got to clarify that for the jury.• There is an MRI
11• •disc that will actually be plugged into some sort of
12• •computer, and then you can actually see the actual MRI;
13• •and then there is the printed report that has been
14• •written out by a radiologist, a medical doctor whose
15• •title is radiologist.• You received the latter not the
16• •former, correct?
17• • • •A• • Correct.• I have received the reports from the
18• •radiologist, but not -- nor do I have any intention of
19• •receiving or reviewing the films or the images
20• •themselves.
21• • • •Q• • Okay.• And you do not dispute any of the
22• •conclusions made by the doctors, right?
23• • • •A• • As to diagnoses and treatment, no, that’s not
24• •my area.
25• • • •Q• • Okay.• At the time of this report what were
•1• •all the records that you had for review?
•2• • • •A• • Now, when you say records are you talking
•3• •about purely medical records or are you talking --
•4• • • •Q• • Well, any kind of documents, records -- I’ll
•5• •use records -- that’s fair enough.
•6• • • • • • Doc, when I say records, I mean anything for
•7• •your records.• At the time that you made this report
•8• •what was available to you for you to be able to print
•9• •and make this report and undersign it?
10• • • •A• • Gotcha.• So if I remember correctly, I was
11• •provided with repair estimates for the Chevrolet.• One
12• •of my colleagues did an inspection on the Chevrolet.
13• •From that inspection we had a report with the EDR data,
14• •event data recorder data, from that vehicle.• I also
15• •reviewed -- you know, later after that report I reviewed
16• •Mr. Yue’s deposition and medical records, and I also
17• •reviewed repair estimates for the Infiniti.• And if I
18• •remember correctly, at the time the report was written
19• •that’s the substance of the material that I reviewed.
20• • • •Q• • Okay.• If you can go to page eleven of your
21• •report, it is section four, it’s called basis of report.
22• • • •A• • And that’s starting on page number eleven,
23• •correct?
24• • • •Q• • Yes, at the bottom of the report it says page
25• •eleven.• So by actual scroll page, I think it’s like --
•1• •I think you have like two pages at the beginning that
•2• •gives the table of contents and that cover sheet.
•3• • • •A• • That sounds about right.
•4• • • •Q• • All right.• Do you see at the top it says
•5• •section four, basis of report?
•6• • • •A• • Yes.
•7• • • •Q• • Okay.• So I have that here.• Is this what you
•8• •had at the time that you made this report?
•9• • • •A• • That is correct.
10• • • •Q• • So I got thirty-eight photographs of the
11• •Infiniti, right?
12• • • • • • (There was a brief interruption in the
13• • • •proceedings.)
14• •BY MR. STEFAN:
15• • • •Q• • I see number one is you reviewed thirty-eight
16• •photographs of the Infiniti?
17• • • •A• • That’s correct.
18• • • •Q• • Did you ever actually inspect the Infiniti
19• •that my client was driving on the date of this crash?
20• • • •A• • No.• I didn’t need to.
21• • • •Q• • Did you have any of your colleagues inspect
22• •the Infiniti?
23• • • •A• • No.• We didn’t need to.
24• • • •Q• • Okay.• Why do you say that you didn’t need to?
25• • • •A• • Because as far as the data is concerned and as
•1• •far as the information that we have -- I apologize, I’m
•2• •not sure if Jorge just said something.
•3• • • • • • MR. SANTEIRO:• No.
•4• • • • • • THE WITNESS:• Sorry.• As far as the data is
•5• • • •concerned, we had everything we needed from doing
•6• • • •the inspection and the data onboard the Chevrolet.
•7• • • •So it’s one of those things where it could
•8• • • •potentially have been helpful information, but it’s
•9• • • •not necessary for the overall conclusions.
10• •BY MR. STEFAN:
11• • • •Q• • And in regards to the Chevy, you did have
12• •either yourself or a colleague that works with you go
13• •inspect the actual Chevy?
14• • • •A• • Correct.• I had one of my colleagues do it,
15• •that’s correct.
16• • • •Q• • And the Chevy was driven by the defendant,
17• •Cynthia Foerster?
18• • • •A• • That’s correct.
19• • • •Q• • And you have one hundred fifty-one photographs
20• •of the Chevy, correct, that you reviewed?
21• • • •A• • I believe so, yes.
22• • • •Q• • All right.• And then it says you also reviewed
23• •a repair estimate of the Infiniti prepared by Coggins
24• •Collision Center dated October 4, 2018; is that right?
25• • • •A• • Yes.
•1• • • •Q• • And then you have AutoStats dimensional data
•2• •for both vehicles, correct?
•3• • • •A• • Correct.
•4• • • •Q• • All right.• Now, what is AutoStats dimensional
•5• •data?
•6• • • •A• • So AutoStats is a software program that we use
•7• •in accident reconstruction; and essentially it’s the
•8• •dimensional data, so the measurements associated with
•9• •the vehicle.• It contains everything from curb weight,
10• •bumper rating, up to yaw moment of inertia.• Yaw is
11• •Y-A-W, moment of inertia.• So it basically gives us the
12• •measurements and properties of the vehicle.
13• • • •Q• • And in regards to that information, you had it
14• •for both vehicles?
15• • • •A• • That’s correct.• It’s a rather large database
16• •where we can look up just about any current vehicle
17• •that’s on the road.
18• • • •Q• • In regards to schematic diagrams here, number
19• •five, of the bumpers of both vehicles were retrieved and
20• •reviewed.• What is the schematic diagrams?
21• • • •A• • So what that essentially is is especially when
22• •we review the repair estimates, it’s important to kind
23• •of see the configuration, what components are there and
24• •what components aren’t.• So in the big picture what that
25• •essentially is is it’s a technical representation.• It’s
•1• •not technically a photograph, but it’s basically kind of
•2• •an exploded technical diagram of the vehicle components,
•3• •whether it’s on the front or the rear of the pertinent
•4• •vehicle.• So it’s essentially a schematic or a layout of
•5• •the components of the vehicle for the region, the
•6• •contact regions that are of interest.
•7• • • •Q• • Okay.• And last is the Chevrolet was inspected
•8• •and its ACM imaged by Michael Lindsey, P.E., using the
•9• •Bosch Crash Data Retrieval system current at the time of
10• •inspection.• That is correct, right?
11• • • •A• • That is correct.
12• • • •Q• • In regards to ACM, I think I know what that
13• •is, but I’ll let you just state it on the record.
14• •What’s an ACM?
15• • • •A• • ACM is the abbreviation for airbag control
16• •module.
17• • • •Q• • Okay.• And then who is Michael Lindsey?
18• • • •A• • Michael Lindsey is one of my colleagues.
19• • • •Q• • Okay.• And what was his role in this process?
20• • • •A• • I don’t know specifically what his scope of
21• •the analysis was.• But part of that scope was to examine
22• •the vehicle and essentially perform a full inspection.
23• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regard to the Chevy, there was
24• •airbag deployment in this motor vehicle crash, correct?
25• • • •A• • That’s correct.
•1• • • •Q• • All right.• And it was just the front two
•2• •passenger airbags that deployed?
•3• • • •A• • If I remember correctly, yes, it was the
•4• •front.• There was no side deployment, nor was there any
•5• •pretension of deployment, if I remember correctly.
•6• • • •Q• • Was there any deployment of the Infiniti’s
•7• •airbags?
•8• • • •A• • No.
•9• • • •Q• • And in regards to damage, actual structural
10• •damage under the Chevy, do you know what damage was
11• •under the Chevy?
12• • • •A• • I know I have documented it.• As I sit here I
13• •know there was -- I know only kind of the big picture
14• •things that I remember.• I remember there was a tilt,
15• •like an upward tilt to the bumper structure with an
16• •indentation on the top and bumper structure on the
17• •impact bar, and possibly bumper cover trim damage, as
18• •well as maybe some -- I forgot the name.• Gosh, the name
19• •is currently escaping me; but the structures that hold
20• •the impact bar in place, the brackets, there may have
21• •been some damage to those as well.• But the one thing
22• •that specifically sticks out to me that I remember is
23• •the indentation to the impact bar.
24• • • •Q• • Okay.• What is the material the impact bar is
25• •made of?
•1• • • •A• • It would depend.• Generally it’s going to be
•2• •some form of -- it could be some form of steel.• I know
•3• •it’s not uncommon for the components on the front of the
•4• •vehicle to be transition-based steel.• So if I had to
•5• •guess, that’s approximately what I would estimate it’s
•6• •composed of.
•7• • • •Q• • So we could agree that it is steel, the impact
•8• •bar at the front of the Chevy?
•9• • • •A• • Yes.• I have no reason to believe it’s
10• •anything else.• Steel makes the most sense based on the
11• •materials that are generally used in these sorts of
12• •vehicles.
13• • • •Q• • The structural composition that makes up or
14• •holds that impact bar, the brackets, et cetera thereon,
15• •is that also steel?
16• • • •A• • I would imagine so.• I don’t have any evidence
17• •to say one way or the other if it’s a different sort of
18• •metal, but I have no reason to believe it’s not some
19• •variant of steel.
20• • • •Q• • If the metal were to be changed, would the
21• •transfer of forces of the change in -- in any kind of
22• •forces be altering to your study?
23• • • •A• • It would depend on the type of metal.• Because
24• •obviously, you know, even when we get into steel there
25• •are different variants and different additives that can
•1• •go in there.• Whether it’s, you know, chromium or cobalt
•2• •heat intensity and fatigue application.• So could the
•3• •material -- would an alteration in the material change
•4• •the properties and the transfer?• It’s a distinct
•5• •possibility because you are going to see a fundamental
•6• •difference in the restitution of the collision itself.
•7• •But at the end of the day how much of a change would
•8• •there be, I don’t know if I can really definitively say.
•9• • • •Q• • Okay.• And when you say the restitution of --
10• •you cut out of the word right there, but I heard
11• •restitution of something.• What was that?• I apologize.
12• • • •A• • Oh, gosh, I’m terrible at remembering what I
13• •said; but I would venture to guess it was something to
14• •the effect of the restitution of the collision.
15• • • •Q• • Okay.• And what do you mean by the restitution
16• •of the collision?
17• • • •A• • So in traffic accident reconstruction and
18• •specifically when vehicles contact each other there’s a
19• •term that we use called restitution.• And what it
20• •essentially is is a ratio between the pre-impact and
21• •post-impact velocity.• And essentially if you boil it
22• •down, it gives you a metric of how essentially these
23• •vehicles stick together or bounce off each other.• It’s
24• •the elastic versus plastic form of a collision.
25• • • •Q• • Okay.• So obviously the steel here was not
•1• •only dented but it was bent, the steel impact bar?
•2• • • •A• • I’m sorry, you said -- do you mind repeating
•3• •that?• I heard a car horn.
•4• • • •Q• • Yeah.• Just let me know at any point.• I said
•5• •in this case the Chevy’s impact bar in the front was, in
•6• •fact, dented and bent, correct?
•7• • • •A• • Yes.• And I want to clarify that saying bent.
•8• •I would say more so it was deflected, because bent can
•9• •have a different context with materials.• Because
10• •typically when we say bent, the thing was actually
11• •displaced between the two points of contact.• This was
12• •more of a rotation.• So it’s more of a torsion than
13• •anything else.• But semantics, semantics, either way it
14• •was displaced from its initial location.
15• • • •Q• • And then the actual bar though itself, there
16• •was a photograph that depicted an indentation in the
17• •actual steel of the impact bar.• Do you remember seeing
18• •that?
19• • • •A• • Yes.• If I remember correctly, it was kind of
20• •raised up, offset slightly to the left as you’re facing
21• •the vehicle, if I remember correctly.
22• • • •Q• • Okay.• And then you talked about the
23• •restitution of collision and, obviously, it having an
24• •impact on the post-impact velocity.• The metals, from
25• •which are on both the giving and receiving end of a
•1• •impact, matter.• Would you agree?
•2• • • •A• • I think that’s fair to say because they’re
•3• •ultimately going to affect the restitution.• So I think
•4• •that’s pretty fair to say that there is going to be at
•5• •least some effects of the metal components, you know,
•6• •and how those are going to relate to the material
•7• •properties.
•8• • • •Q• • And just to clarify here, Doc, this is the
•9• •obvious eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room; but the
10• •front of the Chevy Tahoe that was driven by the
11• •defendants or one of the defendants impacted the rear of
12• •the Infiniti SUV that was driven by the plaintiff,
13• •Mr. Yue, correct?
14• • • •A• • That is correct.
15• • • •Q• • In regards to -- you said earlier I think in
16• •your opinions, you went through them, but you said that
17• •there was a delta-V of five miles an hour.
18• • • •A• • As it pertains to the Chevy, that’s correct.
19• • • •Q• • And then there was a delta-V of roughly less
20• •than seven miles an hour or less than on the Infiniti.
21• • • •A• • Correct.
22• • • •Q• • All right.• All right.• So if we could dumbify
23• •it as much as possible, not only for my sake but maybe
24• •the triers of fact as well, what does that mean in
25• •delta-V Chevy at five miles an hour and delta-V less
•1• •than or equal to seven miles an hour on the Infiniti?
•2• • • •A• • So whenever we do accident reconstruction we
•3• •generally boil the interaction between the vehicles down
•4• •to this delta-V value.• And delta-V, what it essentially
•5• •is, it’s the speed change as a result of the collision.
•6• •This is important because when we think back to, say,
•7• •Newton’s second law of motion, force equals mass times
•8• •acceleration, what is acceleration but a change in speed
•9• •or a delta-V.• So that delta-V is given over a certain
10• •time interval and it effectively gives us the forces
11• •that are -- you know, the forces that are involved in a
12• •collision between these two vehicles.
13• • • • • • So when we say the delta-V, what I’m
14• •essentially saying here is the speed change for the
15• •Chevy as a result of the collision is going to be in the
16• •rearward direction or slowing it with a magnitude of
17• •five point zero miles per hour.• Then the speed change
18• •of the Infiniti as a result of the collision is going to
19• •be less than seven miles per hour as a result of the
20• •collision.• So, in other words, in the incident, before
21• •and after the collision, the Chevrolet is going five
22• •miles per hour slower, and the Infiniti is going less
23• •than seven miles per hour faster than it was in the
24• •moment prior to the collision.
25• • • •Q• • And do you know at the actual time of impact
•1• •the speed of the Chevy?
•2• • • •A• • Yes, I do.• I don’t remember -- as I sit here
•3• •I don’t remember exactly what it is, although it should
•4• •be contained within that report.
•5• • • •Q• • Okay.• Do you want to take a look at that
•6• •report and tell me if you can find it?
•7• • • •A• • Yeah.• And what I’m actually going to do is
•8• •I’m actually going to jump to the appendix, because
•9• •there’s the Bosch CDR reports.
10• • • •Q• • Feel free to share your screen at any time,
11• •Doc.• It usually makes it easier for us non-engineer
12• •folks.
13• • • •A• • Sure.• Understandable.• Let me share this with
14• •you.• Are you guys able to see it?
15• • • •Q• • Yeah.
16• • • •A• • Perfect.• So this is the EDR -- for the
17• •record, what I’m looking at here is the EDR report.• It
18• •is attached as an appendix in my reports.• I’m just
19• •scrolling through it at the moment.• So right here, and
20• •this is, for the record, in my report it’s labeled as
21• •pdf page fifty out of seventy.
22• • • •Q• • Okay.
23• • • •A• • And what it essentially shows is that half a
24• •second prior to the collision the Chevrolet was
25• •traveling at twelve miles per hour.
•1• • • •Q• • So at half a second prior to collision to the
•2• •impact to the rear of the Infiniti the defendant driver
•3• •of the Chevy was going twelve miles an hour.• Did I hear
•4• •that correct?
•5• • • •A• • That sounds -- that’s correct.• I don’t think
•6• •there was any adjustment needed for tire size
•7• •variations, et cetera or anything like that.• So that is
•8• •what this data essentially tells us.• So yes.
•9• • • •Q• • And at actual point of impact is there any way
10• •of determining the exact speed?
11• • • •A• • I don’t believe -- I don’t remember because
12• •with the CDR reports the data can vary a little bit
13• •depending on the manufacturer.• But I can tell you that
14• •my calculations would give us an approximate speed of
15• •what that would look like.• Do you want me to look that
16• •up really quick as well?
17• • • •Q• • Sure.• I mean will you be opining as to that
18• •in front of the jury?
19• • • •A• • I mean honestly, the delta-V is going to be
20• •the value that I’m most interested in.• So I don’t
21• •really care that much what that speed would be other
22• •than it would -- you know, the vehicle evidence would
23• •reflect that.• But at the end of the day essentially I’d
24• •be using that speed to get the delta-V.• So it’s not --
25• •it’s not directly relevant, but it is kind of secondary
•1• •to the analysis as a whole.
•2• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards to speed -- and I found
•3• •it in your report, Doc.• Just to make sure that we’re
•4• •all on the same page, can you go to the bottom of page
•5• •four of your report?• Let me know when you’re there.
•6• •Well, I got it live right here.
•7• • • •A• • Sorry, I scrolled a little too far.
•8• • • •Q• • Right there.• So it says right there, the very
•9• •last sentence, attachment D, the record event
10• •indicated...• Do you see it, the last sentence?
11• • • •A• • Yes.
12• • • •Q• • The record event indicated that the Chevrolet
13• •experienced a rearward directed speed change of five
14• •miles an hour, with no lateral speed change, correct.
15• • • •A• • Correct.• And I just want to make it clear,
16• •too, that that is specifically written as five point
17• •zero miles per hour.• So that is what the EDR measured.
18• • • •Q• • Okay.• And then in regards to the top of the
19• •next page, I think that’s where it goes into what you
20• •were just saying.• I just found it while we were
21• •chatting.• It says crash data was recorded for five
22• •seconds prior to the accident, according to which the
23• •Chevy was traveling between nineteen and twenty-four
24• •miles an hour prior to brake application.
25• • • •A• • Correct.
•1• • • •Q• • In relation to time, do we know how -- (Zoom
•2• •audio interruption.)
•3• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• Hello.
•4• • • • • • THE COURT REPORTER:• Mr. Stefan, you broke up.
•5• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• No worries.
•6• •BY MR. STEFAN:
•7• • • •Q• • I said in relation to time, do we know at what
•8• •time frame prior to impact brake application began?
•9• • • •A• • We should, and specifically just to give kind
10• •of a big picture as far as the information we’ll have,
11• •these GM vehicles, that control module, it will give you
12• •up to five seconds of pre-crash data with half-second
13• •intervals.• So, in theory, it can show me the brake
14• •status at each of those intervals going through.• Do you
15• •want me to look that up in the report right now?
16• • • •Q• • Yeah, I’d like to know if at what point
17• •braking began, if you know that.
18• • • •A• • Sorry, I’m scrolling right back down to the
19• •report.
20• • • •Q• • You’re all right.
21• • • •A• • So it looks like, based on the data I have
22• •here, braking occurred between one and a half and two
23• •seconds prior to the collision.
24• • • •Q• • Okay.
25• • • •A• • And, for the record, this documentation is on
•1• •the same page I previously mentioned, pdf page fifty out
•2• •of seventy in my report.
•3• • • •Q• • Okay.• And you had previously said something
•4• •like speed change of five miles an hour in
•5• •eighty-six milliseconds.• What did you mean by that?
•6• • • •A• • So whenever we get this data from the vehicle
•7• •it gives us a couple different things.• It measures two
•8• •main factors here, and that’s going to be our speed
•9• •change.• But in engineering whenever you have a speed
10• •change, you always have to have that defined over a time
11• •interval.• So what it essentially says is, you know,
12• •we’ve got a measurement for what the overall peak speed
13• •change is.• And we also have an interval, so a time
14• •during the collision where that occurs.
15• • • • • • And if I remember correctly, that peak speed
16• •change occurred starting at, I think, eighty-six. I
17• •don’t remember if it was sixty-eight or eighty-six
18• •seconds -- milliseconds into the collision.• But that’s
19• •where I got this value, was from the report.
20• • • •Q• • And just to clarify, you mean milliseconds,
21• •not seconds?
22• • • •A• • Correct.• Just to clarify, I mean
23• •milliseconds, yes, not seconds.
24• • • •Q• • Okay.• And just to clarify for my question
25• •line earlier, you are not saying that it is impossible
•1• •that Mr. Yue suffered a spinal injury in this motor
•2• •vehicle crash, correct?
•3• • • •A• • Correct.• What I’m looking at is the
•4• •mechanisms for specific injuries.
•5• • • •Q• • And then you are not saying that it’s
•6• •impossible that he suffered a low back injury as a
•7• •result of this motor vehicle crash, correct?
•8• • • •A• • Correct.• I’m looking at the consistency of
•9• •those injuries based on the accident.
10• • • •Q• • And you are also not saying that it’s
11• •impossible for Mr. Yue to have suffered a brain injury
12• •as a result of this motor vehicle crash?
13• • • •A• • Correct.• I am comparing the dynamics with
14• •published literature on head injuries.
15• • • •Q• • Okay.• And,
Preview
Filing # 181961853 E-Filed 09/16/2023 11:31:04 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 2020 CA 001106 AN XIAO SHENG YUE, Plaintiff, vs. CYNTHIA M FOERSTER AND CHAPP, INC., Defendants. / PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF IAN M. ZELLER, Ph.D. COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, XIAO SHENG YUE, by and through the undersigned attorneys, and hereby gives Notice of the Filing with the Court of the Deposition Transcript of IAN M. ZELLER, Ph.D. dated November 19, 2021. Said deposition transcript is for use at trial. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 16th day of September, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts by using the using the Florida Courts eFiling Portal, which will send a copy via email to: Jorge Santeiro, Jr., Esquire, Law Offices of Santeiro & Garrison, 6300 University Parkway, Ste 101, Sarasota, FL 34240, via email at jsanteiro@fcci-group.com; ssmith5@fcci-group.com; legalservice@fcci-group.com. /s/ Manuel Stefan, Esq. Manuel “Manny” Stefan, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 0103389 MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 4495 South Semoran Blvd. Orlando, FL 32822 Telephone No.: (407) 452-6982 Facsimile No.: (407) 572-0124 Primary email: MStefan@forthepeople.com Secondary email: cvictor@forthepeople.com Attorney for Plaintiff 1 • • • •IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT • • • • • • • • IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA • • • • • • • • • • •CASE NO.:• 2020 CA 001106 AN • • • •XIAO SHENG YUE, • • • • • • • • Plaintiff, • • • •vs. • • • •CYNTHIA M. FOERSTER • • •AND CHAPP, INC., • • • • • • • Defendants. • • •___________________________/ • • • • • • • • REMOTE DEPOSITION OF IAN M. ZELLER, PH.D • • • • • • • • • DATE:• • • Friday, November 19, 2021 • • • • • • • • TIME:• • • 9:37 a.m. to 12:33 p.m. • • • • • • • • PLACE:• • •All parties appeared • • • • • • • • • • • • • •remotely via Zoom/VTC • • • • • • •Stenographically Reported By:• Andrea C. Rivera • • • • • •Professional Court Reporter, Notary Public • • • • • • • •1• • • • • • • • • • •REMOTE APPEARANCES •2 •3• •ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: •4• • • • BY:• MANUEL STEFAN, ESQUIRE • • • • • • • •PAOLA RAMOS, ESQUIRE •5• • • • MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. • • • • • 20 North Orange Avenue, 16th Floor •6• • • • Orlando, Florida 32801 • • • • • 407-420-1414 •7• • • • mstefan@forthepeople.com •8 • • •ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: •9 • • • • • BY:• JORGE SANTEIRO, JR., ESQUIRE 10• • • • Santeiro & Garrison • • • • • 6300 University Parkway 11• • • • Sarasota, Florida 34249 • • • • • 941-907-7895 12• • • • jsanteiro@fcci-group.com 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 •1• • • • • • • • • • •INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS •2 •3• •DEPOSITION OF IAN M. ZELLER, PH.D •4• •Direct Examination by Mr. Stefan• • • • • • • • • • •5 •5• •Cross Examination by Mr. Santeiro• • • • • • • • • 120 •6• •Redirect Examination by Mr. Stefan• • • • • • • • •122 •7• •Certificate of Oath• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 125 •8• •Certificate of Reporter• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 126 •9• •Witness Review Letter• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 127 10• •Errata Sheet• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •128 11 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ----- 12 13• • • • • • • • • • •PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBITS 14 • • •Number• •Description• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •Page 15 16• • 1• • • •Entire file• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 17 17• •(Reporter’s note - file was retained by all counsel • • •involved, and a listing of file contents are attached.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 •1• • • • • • Proceedings taken before Andrea C. Rivera, •2• •Professional Court Reporter and Notary Public, in and •3• •for the State of Florida at Large in the above cause. •4• • • • • • • • • • • • - - - - - - - •5• •THEREUPON: •6• • • • • • • The following proceeding occurred: •7• • • • • • THE COURT REPORTER:• The attorneys •8• • • •participating in this deposition acknowledge that I •9• • • •am not physically present in the room and that I 10• • • •will be reporting this proceeding remotely.• They 11• • • •further acknowledge that, in lieu of an oath 12• • • •administered in person, I will administer the oath 13• • • •remotely.• This arrangement is pursuant to the 14• • • •Florida Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 15• • • •AOSC-20-23.• The parties and their counsel consent 16• • • •to this arrangement and waive any objections to 17• • • •this manner of reporting.• Please indicate your 18• • • •agreement by stating your name and your agreement 19• • • •on the record. 20• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• Counsel for plaintiff, Manny 21• • • •Stefan, in agreement, on the record. 22• • • • • • MR. SANTEIRO:• Jorge Santeiro for Chapp, Inc. 23• • • •and Cynthia Foerster, and I agree. 24• • • • • • THE COURT REPORTER:• Dr. Zeller, please raise 25• • • •your right hand. •1• • • • • • • • • • IAN M. ZELLER, PH.D, •2• • • •having been first duly sworn or affirmed to tell •3• • • the truth, was examined and testified as follows: •4• • • • • • THE WITNESS:• I do. •5• • • • • • THE COURT REPORTER:• Thank you. •6• • • • • • • • • • •DIRECT EXAMINATION •7• •BY MR. STEFAN: •8• • • •Q• • Dr. Zeller, do you hear me okay? •9• • • •A• • I can.• Can you hear me okay? 10• • • •Q• • I can.• Could you state your name for the 11• •record and spell your first and last name? 12• • • •A• • Ian Michael Zeller.• First name Ian, I-A-N, 13• •last name Zeller, Z-E-L-L-E-R. 14• • • •Q• • All right.• Dr. Zeller, my understanding is 15• •you are Dr. Zeller.• So I’m just going to probably refer 16• •to you as Dr. Zeller, is that okay? 17• • • •A• • Totally good with me. 18• • • •Q• • Okay.• That’s a very competent attorney on the 19• •other side there, Mr. Santeiro.• So I’m sure you’ve 20• •received, at some point, some instructions or rules in 21• •regards to how depositions work.• My understanding is 22• •also this is not your first deposition, correct? 23• • • •A• • That is correct. 24• • • •Q• • All right.• So I always like to go with some 25• •basic ground rules.• First and foremost, you are not in •1• •jail here in any way, shape or form.• You are free to •2• •move about the cabin, take breaks so often as you need. •3• •The only thing that I ask is that if I have a pending •4• •question, you answer that question before we take a •5• •break.• Fair enough? •6• • • •A• • That’s fair. •7• • • •Q• • All right.• We are off to a good start.• The •8• •second thing I always ask is for verbal responses.• No •9• •nodding of the head, no uh-huh, uh-uhs.• That wonderful 10• •court reporter that we have here, Ms. Andrea, does a 11• •great job, but she cannot take nods of the head.• Fair 12• •enough? 13• • • •A• • That’s fair. 14• • • •Q• • All right.• Last thing is if you do not 15• •understand the question, I need you to tell me to 16• •clarify it or I could re-ask it, whatever needs to be 17• •done.• If you answer a question, I’m going to assume you 18• •understood the question.• Fair enough? 19• • • •A• • Perfect. 20• • • •Q• • All right.• Where are you physically located 21• •right now, Dr. Zeller? 22• • • •A• • At my house. 23• • • •Q• • And I don’t need full address but just city 24• •and state. 25• • • •A• • Palm Coast, Florida. •1• • • •Q• • Okay.• And do you work out of an office as •2• •well? •3• • • •A• • I do. •4• • • •Q• • And where is that office located? •5• • • •A• • Altamonte Springs, Florida. •6• • • •Q• • And do you have your own business or do you •7• •work for somebody? •8• • • •A• • I work for a company. •9• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in the capacity for which you are 10• •here for today, what is that? 11• • • •A• • I’m not sure if I completely understand your 12• •question.• As far as capacity do you mean what’s my 13• •role?• I’m not sure if I completely understand. 14• • • •Q• • So obviously you’re an expert in this matter, 15• •correct? 16• • • •A• • Correct. 17• • • •Q• • What’s your expert capacity role in this 18• •matter? 19• • • •A• • I’m a biomechanical engineer. 20• • • •Q• • Okay.• So you’re a biomech or a biomechanical, 21• •I’ll use those interchangeably.• Do you have anything 22• •against me doing that? 23• • • •A• • I have no objections to that. 24• • • •Q• • And so you work as a biomechanical engineer, 25• •correct? •1• • • •A• • Correct. •2• • • •Q• • All right.• So who do you work for? •3• • • •A• • Rimkus Consulting Group, that’s R-I-M-K-U-S. •4• • • •Q• • All right.• And in regards to the matter for •5• •which we are here for today, Mr. Xiao Sheng Yue versus •6• •Cynthia Foerster and Chapp, Inc., you are testifying on •7• •behalf of the defendants; is that correct? •8• • • •A• • Correct. •9• • • •Q• • All right.• Background information really 10• •quick, Doc.• Undergrad degree? 11• • • •A• • Clemson University, material science 12• •engineering with a minor in mathematical sciences. 13• • • •Q• • All right.• Any advanced degrees after that? 14• • • •A• • Yes.• I have a master’s degree from the 15• •University of Penn State in biomedical engineering, and 16• •I have a Ph.D. from the University of Tennessee in 17• •biomedical engineering with a concentration in 18• •biomechanics. 19• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• Are you guys getting feedback? 20• • • • • • THE COURT REPORTER:• Yes, that’s what I was 21• • • •just going to say. 22• • • • • • MR. SANTEIRO:• I am, too. 23• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• Let’s go off the record. 24• • • • • • (A discussion off the record was held.) 25• •BY MR. STEFAN: •1• • • •Q• • When did you receive your Ph.D., Doc? •2• • • •A• • 2018, May. •3• • • •Q• • Let’s go back, because I did get some •4• •feedback.• What was your Ph.D. in, biomedical and •5• •something else? •6• • • •A• • Biomedical engineering with a concentration in •7• •biomechanics. •8• • • •Q• • And how long -- or what is your position at •9• •Rimkus? 10• • • •A• • I am a senior consultant. 11• • • •Q• • Okay.• And how long have you been at Rimkus? 12• • • •A• • Since 2018, so approximately three and a half 13• •years. 14• • • •Q• • And what exactly is it that a senior 15• •consultant does at Rimkus? 16• • • •A• • So in general we do consulting, and I just 17• •generally describe consulting as answering questions. 18• •Sorry, the feedback is back. 19• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• It is a little bit.• Can we go 20• • • •off the record real quick, Andrea? 21• • • • • • THE COURT REPORTER:• Yes. 22• • • • • • (A short recess was taken.) 23• •BY MR. STEFAN: 24• • • •Q• • We had a little connectivity issue there, Doc. 25• •You can hear me fine now, right? •1• • • •A• • That is correct. •2• • • •Q• • Okay.• We were going -- I think I was asking •3• •you what -- you told me you were a senior consultant at •4• •Rimkus since 2018, correct? •5• • • •A• • That is correct. •6• • • •Q• • All right.• And what exactly are your duties •7• •and responsibilities as a senior consultant for Rimkus? •8• • • •A• • So there are a number of different things. •9• •Some of it is administrative stuff dealing with 10• •paperwork, dealing with kind of the general stuff that 11• •you’d expect in most office settings.• But in addition 12• •to that, the other thing I do is working with clients, 13• •answering questions, performing analyses and essentially 14• •testifying, if need be, to the opinions that I come up 15• •with. 16• • • •Q• • Okay.• You said working with clients and then 17• •doing obviously whatever the client requires of that, 18• •and analysis and whatever else work that you get hired 19• •to do, correct? 20• • • •A• • Correct.• And to answer their questions is a 21• •good way I describe that. 22• • • •Q• • All right.• Who would be the clients that 23• •typically hire you? 24• • • •A• • So it depends.• Sometimes it’s companies, 25• •sometimes it’s municipalities, and other times it could •1• •be attorneys. •2• • • •Q• • Okay.• What kind of companies? •3• • • •A• • It could be insurance companies.• It could be •4• •companies looking at some sort of failure analysis.• So •5• •it really runs the gamut between insurance companies and •6• •just, you know, general companies.• We’ll just say •7• •companies that just need questions answered essentially. •8• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards to your education, do •9• •you have a medical degree? 10• • • •A• • No.• I do not have an M.D. 11• • • •Q• • Okay.• You don’t have an M.D. or a D.O., 12• •correct? 13• • • •A• • Correct.• I have a Ph.D. 14• • • •Q• • All right.• You don’t have a nursing degree of 15• •any kind? 16• • • •A• • Correct. 17• • • •Q• • In regards to the standpoint of today, will 18• •you be giving any medical opinions? 19• • • •A• • No. 20• • • •Q• • Okay.• Any medical causation opinions? 21• • • •A• • No medical causation opinions. 22• • • •Q• • Okay.• Basically how long have you been doing 23• •the kind of work that you were hired to do here? 24• • • •A• • I would say approximately -- well, it depends. 25• •When you talk specifically about forensics and this sort •1• •of investigational work, it’s going to be about four •2• •years.• If you want kind of biomechanics in general, •3• •that’s probably closer to ten. •4• • • •Q• • All right.• What were you hired to do in this •5• •case? •6• • • •A• • I was hired to do a biomechanical analysis. •7• • • •Q• • And was it only biomechanical or also any kind •8• •of accident reconstruction type of analysis? •9• • • •A• • So generally part of the biomechanical 10• •analysis is going to cater toward a vehicle accident 11• •reconstruction to the extent which one is required.• So 12• •there is some vehicle accident reconstruction components 13• •to the analysis I did. 14• • • •Q• • Okay.• Did you look at this case from a 15• •medical standpoint at all? 16• • • •A• • When you say from a medical standpoint, no. I 17• •looked at it from a biomechanical standpoint. 18• • • •Q• • Okay.• And did you look at it from the 19• •standpoint of whether my client, Mr. Yue, was able to be 20• •injured due to the forces involved in this case as you 21• •see them? 22• • • •A• • So in general what I looked at were the 23• •mechanical conditions from the accident, the forces 24• •involved, and whether or not that’s consistent with the 25• •mechanisms of injury or the types of injuries that were •1• •claimed. •2• • • •Q• • Okay.• So are you making a medical opinion as •3• •it relates to causation of injuries in this case? •4• • • •A• • No.• I’m making a general opinion as far as •5• •the consistency of injuries in this case. •6• • • •Q• • Okay.• I have a report here in regards to this •7• •matter.• I believe this is your report.• The report is •8• •approximately -- if I don’t include all the, I guess, •9• •attached exhibits -- apparently the report I have here 10• •is about eighteen pages -- seventeen, eighteen pages; is 11• •that correct? 12• • • •A• • I have no reason to dispute that.• That sounds 13• •correct. 14• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards to, I guess, you know, 15• •the case at hand, what are your opinions in regards to 16• •this matter? 17• • • •A• • So there are a few of them.• Do you just want 18• •me to go ahead and list them all? 19• • • •Q• • Yeah. 20• • • •A• • So in general, and these are more or less 21• •summarized in the report as well, is that we have airbag 22• •control module data from the Chevrolet in this case. 23• •And that airbag control module measured a speed change 24• •of five miles per hour over the course of -- I want to 25• •say it was eighty-six milliseconds or something like •1• •that.• So it had a delta-V of five miles per hour.• That •2• •contributes to a delta-V of less than seven miles per •3• •hour on the Infiniti.• And then factoring in -- you •4• •know, that’s the reconstruction component. •5• • • • • • So based on that, the lumbar loading -- lumbar •6• •and cervical loading for the occupant of the Infiniti •7• •would be within the expectation of activities of daily •8• •living.• There would be no mechanism associated with •9• •structural disc changes as a result of the dynamics of 10• •the accident.• There would be no mechanism for 11• •meaningful head acceleration as a result of the 12• •accident.• And I think the last thing I included on 13• •there was that there’s no basis for a vascular event, at 14• •least there is no mechanical basis for a vascular event 15• •as a result of the accident. 16• • • •Q• • I’m going to go back really quick.• Is it your 17• •testimony that there’s no mechanism for -- no mechanism 18• •of injury for a cervical spine injury? 19• • • •A• • So no mechanism of injury for a structural 20• •disc change.• You may have the mechanisms for a cervical 21• •sprain, and I believe that’s one of my conclusions 22• •that’s in the original report.• You may have the 23• •potential for overexertion of soft tissue in that 24• •region.• So the mechanisms for cervical strain would 25• •conceivably be there; but when it comes to the •1• •mechanisms for structural disc changes, herniations, •2• •bulges, those would be inconsistent with the mechanics •3• •of the accident for the lumbar and cervical regions. •4• • • •Q• • Are you saying that it’s impossible for •5• •Mr. Yue to have suffered a disc herniation in his •6• •cervical spine as a result of this motor vehicle crash •7• •on September 11th, 2018? •8• • • •A• • Nothing is impossible.• From a mechanics •9• •perspective, there isn’t a mechanical basis for the way 10• •that injury happens being present with the dynamics of 11• •the accident. 12• • • •Q• • You cut out at the very end, something about 13• •the dynamics of the accident.• I apologize. 14• • • •A• • No worries.• There is -- sorry, I’m trying to 15• •think back to exactly what I said.• So nothing is 16• •impossible, but when it comes to the mechanisms 17• •associated or the way that these sorts of injuries 18• •happen, specifically the disc herniations, et cetera -- 19• •or, I’m sorry, stick with the disc herniations, the 20• •mechanisms or the mechanical explanations for those are 21• •inconsistent with the mechanics of the accident or the 22• •dynamics of the accident.• I think that’s -- I’m not 23• •sure how I phrased it before. 24• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards to mechanism of injury 25• •for the lumbar spine, the low back, are you saying it’s •1• •impossible for Mr. Yue to have suffered a lumbar spine •2• •injury as a result of this motor vehicle crash dated •3• •September 11th, 2018? •4• • • •A• • Again, nothing is impossible; but when it •5• •comes to the forces involved, they would be within the •6• •expectation of activity of daily living where they’d be •7• •comparable to other activities experienced throughout •8• •the day. •9• • • •Q• • Okay.• Is it your testimony that it’s 10• •impossible for Mr. Yue to have suffered a brain injury 11• •as a result of this motor vehicle crash dated 12• •September 11th, 2018? 13• • • •A• • Again, nothing is impossible; but when it 14• •comes to the mechanics and the forces and the 15• •accelerations that are associated with traumatic brain 16• •injuries, the forces from the accident are inconsistent 17• •with published values and literature associated with 18• •such injuries. 19• • • •Q• • In regards to -- I think I’m going to break 20• •your opinions down.• I have page two of your report 21• •here.• It says conclusions at the top, section two.• Do 22• •you see that? 23• • • •A• • Yes, sir.• I’m pulling it up just so I can 24• •make sure I’m looking at the same thing, literally on 25• •the same page. •1• • • •Q• • All right.• You got it in front of you? •2• • • •A• • I do. •3• • • •Q• • Okay.• Doc, before we go, this was a subpoena •4• •duces tecum, you were asked to bring a copy of your •5• •file.• You brought it before.• This is kind of really a •6• •continued restart of your prior deposition.• You brought •7• •your whole file again with you? •8• • • •A• • Yes.• I can shoot the link over if need be; •9• •but yeah, nothing has changed since the previous 10• •sending. 11• • • •Q• • Okay. 12• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• I will attach his entire file as 13• • • •Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1. 14• • • • • • (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 was marked for 15• • • •identification.) 16• •BY MR. STEFAN: 17• • • •Q• • In regards to that report, I have a cover 18• •sheet at the top.• It’s basically Rimkus Consulting 19• •Group and it says report of findings.• Am I seeing that 20• •correct? 21• • • •A• • Yes, I believe that sounds correct. 22• • • •Q• • All right.• And then I see that you’re signed 23• •on on this front page, Ian M. Zeller and Ph.D., senior 24• •consultant, correct, on the very first page? 25• • • •A• • That’s correct. •1• • • •Q• • And underneath it says that Richard V. •2• •Baratta, Ph.D, P.E., Florida licensed engineer also •3• •undersigned on this? •4• • • •A• • That’s correct. •5• • • •Q• • All right.• And it says here he’s titled •6• •senior vice president.• Who is about Mr. Baratta? •7• • • •A• • So he is essentially the vice president of the •8• •division.• And the reason his name is on there is •9• •when -- you know, years ago -- I think this report was 10• •from 2018.• Back then I used to have whoever the 11• •technical reviewer was would do the signature on the 12• •report as well.• So he is essentially my technical 13• •reviewer at that time, and that’s why he’s undersigned 14• •on the report as well. 15• • • •Q• • Okay.• So at the time of this report you did 16• •not have your Ph.D. or you did? 17• • • •A• • No, I did have my Ph.D. at the time of that 18• •report. 19• • • •Q• • So then what was the reason for him having to 20• •undersign it? 21• • • •A• • That’s just the way we did it back then, the 22• •technical reviewer undersigned the report. 23• • • •Q• • Okay.• Did he do actually any hands-on work 24• •with this? 25• • • •A• • No.• He just simply reviewed the work that I •1• •did and basically served as quality control. •2• • • •Q• • Okay.• And then I believe the date of the •3• •report is at the very bottom.• You tell me if I’m wrong, •4• •but I have October 25th, 2018; is that correct? •5• • • •A• • That looks correct, yes. •6• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards -- that’s when you •7• •basically undersigned it and said hey, this thing’s •8• •ready to go out the door, you completed it and sent it, •9• •right? 10• • • •A• • I’m sorry, can you say that one more time? 11• • • •Q• • That date, October 25th, 2018, is when you 12• •signed it and sent it off? 13• • • •A• • That’s correct. 14• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards to that, since then have 15• •you made any changes, amendments to the report? 16• • • •A• • So, no.• I did receive additional 17• •documentation, specifically medical records were 18• •reviewed in addition, which were not reviewed at the 19• •time the report was written; but there is not a 20• •supplemental report written since then. 21• • • •Q• • All right.• And what additional records did 22• •you receive? 23• • • •A• • So if I remember correctly, at the time of 24• •this -- at the time this report was written I had not 25• •reviewed deposition transcripts, nor had I reviewed •1• •really any medical records.• So those are reflected in •2• •my summary, but those were not reflected in the original •3• •writing of this report. •4• • • •Q• • Okay.• So in regards to deposition -- so since •5• •the report you’ve only received additional medical •6• •records and depo transcripts, deposition transcripts, •7• •correct? •8• • • •A• • As I sit here, if I recall correctly, yes. •9• •There may have been additional legal documents, whether 10• •it’s interrogatories, the complaint, et cetera; but in 11• •general as far as substantive materials to the case are 12• •concerned, those are the only two things that come to 13• •mind. 14• • • •Q• • Okay.• Which deposition transcripts did you 15• •receive? 16• • • •A• • I believe Mr. Yue, as well as -- I think that 17• •was it.• I think it was only Mr. Yue. 18• • • •Q• • All right.• Did you happen to receive a 19• •deposition transcript of a biomechanical by the name of 20• •Dr. Booeshaghi? 21• • • •A• • I did not. 22• • • • • • MR. SANTEIRO:• Manny, just for the record, I 23• • • •don’t believe we received that transcript.• So I 24• • • •might be wrong, but I’m looking at my file, just 25• • • •for the record. •1• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• I don’t think I have either, •2• • • •Jorge.• I didn’t know if somehow you paid extra •3• • • •money and got it expedited. •4• •BY MR. STEFAN: •5• • • •Q• • Other than the plaintiff’s deposition •6• •transcript, have you reviewed any other deposition •7• •transcripts? •8• • • •A• • I don’t believe so, no. •9• • • •Q• • Okay.• And then additional medical records 10• •that you received after this report was initially done 11• •would have been which records? 12• • • •A• • Basically all of the records I have were 13• •received after this original report was written.• So I 14• •don’t remember as I sit here exactly which records those 15• •were, but I can tell you that in the provided folder 16• •that I sent over to you, everything contained in there 17• •was received after the report was written. 18• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards to the medical records 19• •that you received, were there MRIs in there? 20• • • •A• • I believe there were MRI reports.• There were 21• •not films, but I don’t review films.• So I believe the 22• •reports, but the MRI films themselves were not contained 23• •in those records, if I remember correctly. 24• • • •Q• • Do you opine any difference than what is in 25• •the medical records in regards to Mr. Yue’s medical •1• •diagnoses? •2• • • •A• • I have no intention of refuting any diagnoses •3• •from those records, purely to contextualize the •4• •biomechanical analysis. •5• • • •Q• • Okay.• Do you contest any of the •6• •symptomatology which Mr. Yue reported to any of the •7• •medical doctors? •8• • • •A• • No. •9• • • •Q• • And then when you said MRI reports, sometimes 10• •we got to clarify that for the jury.• There is an MRI 11• •disc that will actually be plugged into some sort of 12• •computer, and then you can actually see the actual MRI; 13• •and then there is the printed report that has been 14• •written out by a radiologist, a medical doctor whose 15• •title is radiologist.• You received the latter not the 16• •former, correct? 17• • • •A• • Correct.• I have received the reports from the 18• •radiologist, but not -- nor do I have any intention of 19• •receiving or reviewing the films or the images 20• •themselves. 21• • • •Q• • Okay.• And you do not dispute any of the 22• •conclusions made by the doctors, right? 23• • • •A• • As to diagnoses and treatment, no, that’s not 24• •my area. 25• • • •Q• • Okay.• At the time of this report what were •1• •all the records that you had for review? •2• • • •A• • Now, when you say records are you talking •3• •about purely medical records or are you talking -- •4• • • •Q• • Well, any kind of documents, records -- I’ll •5• •use records -- that’s fair enough. •6• • • • • • Doc, when I say records, I mean anything for •7• •your records.• At the time that you made this report •8• •what was available to you for you to be able to print •9• •and make this report and undersign it? 10• • • •A• • Gotcha.• So if I remember correctly, I was 11• •provided with repair estimates for the Chevrolet.• One 12• •of my colleagues did an inspection on the Chevrolet. 13• •From that inspection we had a report with the EDR data, 14• •event data recorder data, from that vehicle.• I also 15• •reviewed -- you know, later after that report I reviewed 16• •Mr. Yue’s deposition and medical records, and I also 17• •reviewed repair estimates for the Infiniti.• And if I 18• •remember correctly, at the time the report was written 19• •that’s the substance of the material that I reviewed. 20• • • •Q• • Okay.• If you can go to page eleven of your 21• •report, it is section four, it’s called basis of report. 22• • • •A• • And that’s starting on page number eleven, 23• •correct? 24• • • •Q• • Yes, at the bottom of the report it says page 25• •eleven.• So by actual scroll page, I think it’s like -- •1• •I think you have like two pages at the beginning that •2• •gives the table of contents and that cover sheet. •3• • • •A• • That sounds about right. •4• • • •Q• • All right.• Do you see at the top it says •5• •section four, basis of report? •6• • • •A• • Yes. •7• • • •Q• • Okay.• So I have that here.• Is this what you •8• •had at the time that you made this report? •9• • • •A• • That is correct. 10• • • •Q• • So I got thirty-eight photographs of the 11• •Infiniti, right? 12• • • • • • (There was a brief interruption in the 13• • • •proceedings.) 14• •BY MR. STEFAN: 15• • • •Q• • I see number one is you reviewed thirty-eight 16• •photographs of the Infiniti? 17• • • •A• • That’s correct. 18• • • •Q• • Did you ever actually inspect the Infiniti 19• •that my client was driving on the date of this crash? 20• • • •A• • No.• I didn’t need to. 21• • • •Q• • Did you have any of your colleagues inspect 22• •the Infiniti? 23• • • •A• • No.• We didn’t need to. 24• • • •Q• • Okay.• Why do you say that you didn’t need to? 25• • • •A• • Because as far as the data is concerned and as •1• •far as the information that we have -- I apologize, I’m •2• •not sure if Jorge just said something. •3• • • • • • MR. SANTEIRO:• No. •4• • • • • • THE WITNESS:• Sorry.• As far as the data is •5• • • •concerned, we had everything we needed from doing •6• • • •the inspection and the data onboard the Chevrolet. •7• • • •So it’s one of those things where it could •8• • • •potentially have been helpful information, but it’s •9• • • •not necessary for the overall conclusions. 10• •BY MR. STEFAN: 11• • • •Q• • And in regards to the Chevy, you did have 12• •either yourself or a colleague that works with you go 13• •inspect the actual Chevy? 14• • • •A• • Correct.• I had one of my colleagues do it, 15• •that’s correct. 16• • • •Q• • And the Chevy was driven by the defendant, 17• •Cynthia Foerster? 18• • • •A• • That’s correct. 19• • • •Q• • And you have one hundred fifty-one photographs 20• •of the Chevy, correct, that you reviewed? 21• • • •A• • I believe so, yes. 22• • • •Q• • All right.• And then it says you also reviewed 23• •a repair estimate of the Infiniti prepared by Coggins 24• •Collision Center dated October 4, 2018; is that right? 25• • • •A• • Yes. •1• • • •Q• • And then you have AutoStats dimensional data •2• •for both vehicles, correct? •3• • • •A• • Correct. •4• • • •Q• • All right.• Now, what is AutoStats dimensional •5• •data? •6• • • •A• • So AutoStats is a software program that we use •7• •in accident reconstruction; and essentially it’s the •8• •dimensional data, so the measurements associated with •9• •the vehicle.• It contains everything from curb weight, 10• •bumper rating, up to yaw moment of inertia.• Yaw is 11• •Y-A-W, moment of inertia.• So it basically gives us the 12• •measurements and properties of the vehicle. 13• • • •Q• • And in regards to that information, you had it 14• •for both vehicles? 15• • • •A• • That’s correct.• It’s a rather large database 16• •where we can look up just about any current vehicle 17• •that’s on the road. 18• • • •Q• • In regards to schematic diagrams here, number 19• •five, of the bumpers of both vehicles were retrieved and 20• •reviewed.• What is the schematic diagrams? 21• • • •A• • So what that essentially is is especially when 22• •we review the repair estimates, it’s important to kind 23• •of see the configuration, what components are there and 24• •what components aren’t.• So in the big picture what that 25• •essentially is is it’s a technical representation.• It’s •1• •not technically a photograph, but it’s basically kind of •2• •an exploded technical diagram of the vehicle components, •3• •whether it’s on the front or the rear of the pertinent •4• •vehicle.• So it’s essentially a schematic or a layout of •5• •the components of the vehicle for the region, the •6• •contact regions that are of interest. •7• • • •Q• • Okay.• And last is the Chevrolet was inspected •8• •and its ACM imaged by Michael Lindsey, P.E., using the •9• •Bosch Crash Data Retrieval system current at the time of 10• •inspection.• That is correct, right? 11• • • •A• • That is correct. 12• • • •Q• • In regards to ACM, I think I know what that 13• •is, but I’ll let you just state it on the record. 14• •What’s an ACM? 15• • • •A• • ACM is the abbreviation for airbag control 16• •module. 17• • • •Q• • Okay.• And then who is Michael Lindsey? 18• • • •A• • Michael Lindsey is one of my colleagues. 19• • • •Q• • Okay.• And what was his role in this process? 20• • • •A• • I don’t know specifically what his scope of 21• •the analysis was.• But part of that scope was to examine 22• •the vehicle and essentially perform a full inspection. 23• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regard to the Chevy, there was 24• •airbag deployment in this motor vehicle crash, correct? 25• • • •A• • That’s correct. •1• • • •Q• • All right.• And it was just the front two •2• •passenger airbags that deployed? •3• • • •A• • If I remember correctly, yes, it was the •4• •front.• There was no side deployment, nor was there any •5• •pretension of deployment, if I remember correctly. •6• • • •Q• • Was there any deployment of the Infiniti’s •7• •airbags? •8• • • •A• • No. •9• • • •Q• • And in regards to damage, actual structural 10• •damage under the Chevy, do you know what damage was 11• •under the Chevy? 12• • • •A• • I know I have documented it.• As I sit here I 13• •know there was -- I know only kind of the big picture 14• •things that I remember.• I remember there was a tilt, 15• •like an upward tilt to the bumper structure with an 16• •indentation on the top and bumper structure on the 17• •impact bar, and possibly bumper cover trim damage, as 18• •well as maybe some -- I forgot the name.• Gosh, the name 19• •is currently escaping me; but the structures that hold 20• •the impact bar in place, the brackets, there may have 21• •been some damage to those as well.• But the one thing 22• •that specifically sticks out to me that I remember is 23• •the indentation to the impact bar. 24• • • •Q• • Okay.• What is the material the impact bar is 25• •made of? •1• • • •A• • It would depend.• Generally it’s going to be •2• •some form of -- it could be some form of steel.• I know •3• •it’s not uncommon for the components on the front of the •4• •vehicle to be transition-based steel.• So if I had to •5• •guess, that’s approximately what I would estimate it’s •6• •composed of. •7• • • •Q• • So we could agree that it is steel, the impact •8• •bar at the front of the Chevy? •9• • • •A• • Yes.• I have no reason to believe it’s 10• •anything else.• Steel makes the most sense based on the 11• •materials that are generally used in these sorts of 12• •vehicles. 13• • • •Q• • The structural composition that makes up or 14• •holds that impact bar, the brackets, et cetera thereon, 15• •is that also steel? 16• • • •A• • I would imagine so.• I don’t have any evidence 17• •to say one way or the other if it’s a different sort of 18• •metal, but I have no reason to believe it’s not some 19• •variant of steel. 20• • • •Q• • If the metal were to be changed, would the 21• •transfer of forces of the change in -- in any kind of 22• •forces be altering to your study? 23• • • •A• • It would depend on the type of metal.• Because 24• •obviously, you know, even when we get into steel there 25• •are different variants and different additives that can •1• •go in there.• Whether it’s, you know, chromium or cobalt •2• •heat intensity and fatigue application.• So could the •3• •material -- would an alteration in the material change •4• •the properties and the transfer?• It’s a distinct •5• •possibility because you are going to see a fundamental •6• •difference in the restitution of the collision itself. •7• •But at the end of the day how much of a change would •8• •there be, I don’t know if I can really definitively say. •9• • • •Q• • Okay.• And when you say the restitution of -- 10• •you cut out of the word right there, but I heard 11• •restitution of something.• What was that?• I apologize. 12• • • •A• • Oh, gosh, I’m terrible at remembering what I 13• •said; but I would venture to guess it was something to 14• •the effect of the restitution of the collision. 15• • • •Q• • Okay.• And what do you mean by the restitution 16• •of the collision? 17• • • •A• • So in traffic accident reconstruction and 18• •specifically when vehicles contact each other there’s a 19• •term that we use called restitution.• And what it 20• •essentially is is a ratio between the pre-impact and 21• •post-impact velocity.• And essentially if you boil it 22• •down, it gives you a metric of how essentially these 23• •vehicles stick together or bounce off each other.• It’s 24• •the elastic versus plastic form of a collision. 25• • • •Q• • Okay.• So obviously the steel here was not •1• •only dented but it was bent, the steel impact bar? •2• • • •A• • I’m sorry, you said -- do you mind repeating •3• •that?• I heard a car horn. •4• • • •Q• • Yeah.• Just let me know at any point.• I said •5• •in this case the Chevy’s impact bar in the front was, in •6• •fact, dented and bent, correct? •7• • • •A• • Yes.• And I want to clarify that saying bent. •8• •I would say more so it was deflected, because bent can •9• •have a different context with materials.• Because 10• •typically when we say bent, the thing was actually 11• •displaced between the two points of contact.• This was 12• •more of a rotation.• So it’s more of a torsion than 13• •anything else.• But semantics, semantics, either way it 14• •was displaced from its initial location. 15• • • •Q• • And then the actual bar though itself, there 16• •was a photograph that depicted an indentation in the 17• •actual steel of the impact bar.• Do you remember seeing 18• •that? 19• • • •A• • Yes.• If I remember correctly, it was kind of 20• •raised up, offset slightly to the left as you’re facing 21• •the vehicle, if I remember correctly. 22• • • •Q• • Okay.• And then you talked about the 23• •restitution of collision and, obviously, it having an 24• •impact on the post-impact velocity.• The metals, from 25• •which are on both the giving and receiving end of a •1• •impact, matter.• Would you agree? •2• • • •A• • I think that’s fair to say because they’re •3• •ultimately going to affect the restitution.• So I think •4• •that’s pretty fair to say that there is going to be at •5• •least some effects of the metal components, you know, •6• •and how those are going to relate to the material •7• •properties. •8• • • •Q• • And just to clarify here, Doc, this is the •9• •obvious eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room; but the 10• •front of the Chevy Tahoe that was driven by the 11• •defendants or one of the defendants impacted the rear of 12• •the Infiniti SUV that was driven by the plaintiff, 13• •Mr. Yue, correct? 14• • • •A• • That is correct. 15• • • •Q• • In regards to -- you said earlier I think in 16• •your opinions, you went through them, but you said that 17• •there was a delta-V of five miles an hour. 18• • • •A• • As it pertains to the Chevy, that’s correct. 19• • • •Q• • And then there was a delta-V of roughly less 20• •than seven miles an hour or less than on the Infiniti. 21• • • •A• • Correct. 22• • • •Q• • All right.• All right.• So if we could dumbify 23• •it as much as possible, not only for my sake but maybe 24• •the triers of fact as well, what does that mean in 25• •delta-V Chevy at five miles an hour and delta-V less •1• •than or equal to seven miles an hour on the Infiniti? •2• • • •A• • So whenever we do accident reconstruction we •3• •generally boil the interaction between the vehicles down •4• •to this delta-V value.• And delta-V, what it essentially •5• •is, it’s the speed change as a result of the collision. •6• •This is important because when we think back to, say, •7• •Newton’s second law of motion, force equals mass times •8• •acceleration, what is acceleration but a change in speed •9• •or a delta-V.• So that delta-V is given over a certain 10• •time interval and it effectively gives us the forces 11• •that are -- you know, the forces that are involved in a 12• •collision between these two vehicles. 13• • • • • • So when we say the delta-V, what I’m 14• •essentially saying here is the speed change for the 15• •Chevy as a result of the collision is going to be in the 16• •rearward direction or slowing it with a magnitude of 17• •five point zero miles per hour.• Then the speed change 18• •of the Infiniti as a result of the collision is going to 19• •be less than seven miles per hour as a result of the 20• •collision.• So, in other words, in the incident, before 21• •and after the collision, the Chevrolet is going five 22• •miles per hour slower, and the Infiniti is going less 23• •than seven miles per hour faster than it was in the 24• •moment prior to the collision. 25• • • •Q• • And do you know at the actual time of impact •1• •the speed of the Chevy? •2• • • •A• • Yes, I do.• I don’t remember -- as I sit here •3• •I don’t remember exactly what it is, although it should •4• •be contained within that report. •5• • • •Q• • Okay.• Do you want to take a look at that •6• •report and tell me if you can find it? •7• • • •A• • Yeah.• And what I’m actually going to do is •8• •I’m actually going to jump to the appendix, because •9• •there’s the Bosch CDR reports. 10• • • •Q• • Feel free to share your screen at any time, 11• •Doc.• It usually makes it easier for us non-engineer 12• •folks. 13• • • •A• • Sure.• Understandable.• Let me share this with 14• •you.• Are you guys able to see it? 15• • • •Q• • Yeah. 16• • • •A• • Perfect.• So this is the EDR -- for the 17• •record, what I’m looking at here is the EDR report.• It 18• •is attached as an appendix in my reports.• I’m just 19• •scrolling through it at the moment.• So right here, and 20• •this is, for the record, in my report it’s labeled as 21• •pdf page fifty out of seventy. 22• • • •Q• • Okay. 23• • • •A• • And what it essentially shows is that half a 24• •second prior to the collision the Chevrolet was 25• •traveling at twelve miles per hour. •1• • • •Q• • So at half a second prior to collision to the •2• •impact to the rear of the Infiniti the defendant driver •3• •of the Chevy was going twelve miles an hour.• Did I hear •4• •that correct? •5• • • •A• • That sounds -- that’s correct.• I don’t think •6• •there was any adjustment needed for tire size •7• •variations, et cetera or anything like that.• So that is •8• •what this data essentially tells us.• So yes. •9• • • •Q• • And at actual point of impact is there any way 10• •of determining the exact speed? 11• • • •A• • I don’t believe -- I don’t remember because 12• •with the CDR reports the data can vary a little bit 13• •depending on the manufacturer.• But I can tell you that 14• •my calculations would give us an approximate speed of 15• •what that would look like.• Do you want me to look that 16• •up really quick as well? 17• • • •Q• • Sure.• I mean will you be opining as to that 18• •in front of the jury? 19• • • •A• • I mean honestly, the delta-V is going to be 20• •the value that I’m most interested in.• So I don’t 21• •really care that much what that speed would be other 22• •than it would -- you know, the vehicle evidence would 23• •reflect that.• But at the end of the day essentially I’d 24• •be using that speed to get the delta-V.• So it’s not -- 25• •it’s not directly relevant, but it is kind of secondary •1• •to the analysis as a whole. •2• • • •Q• • Okay.• And in regards to speed -- and I found •3• •it in your report, Doc.• Just to make sure that we’re •4• •all on the same page, can you go to the bottom of page •5• •four of your report?• Let me know when you’re there. •6• •Well, I got it live right here. •7• • • •A• • Sorry, I scrolled a little too far. •8• • • •Q• • Right there.• So it says right there, the very •9• •last sentence, attachment D, the record event 10• •indicated...• Do you see it, the last sentence? 11• • • •A• • Yes. 12• • • •Q• • The record event indicated that the Chevrolet 13• •experienced a rearward directed speed change of five 14• •miles an hour, with no lateral speed change, correct. 15• • • •A• • Correct.• And I just want to make it clear, 16• •too, that that is specifically written as five point 17• •zero miles per hour.• So that is what the EDR measured. 18• • • •Q• • Okay.• And then in regards to the top of the 19• •next page, I think that’s where it goes into what you 20• •were just saying.• I just found it while we were 21• •chatting.• It says crash data was recorded for five 22• •seconds prior to the accident, according to which the 23• •Chevy was traveling between nineteen and twenty-four 24• •miles an hour prior to brake application. 25• • • •A• • Correct. •1• • • •Q• • In relation to time, do we know how -- (Zoom •2• •audio interruption.) •3• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• Hello. •4• • • • • • THE COURT REPORTER:• Mr. Stefan, you broke up. •5• • • • • • MR. STEFAN:• No worries. •6• •BY MR. STEFAN: •7• • • •Q• • I said in relation to time, do we know at what •8• •time frame prior to impact brake application began? •9• • • •A• • We should, and specifically just to give kind 10• •of a big picture as far as the information we’ll have, 11• •these GM vehicles, that control module, it will give you 12• •up to five seconds of pre-crash data with half-second 13• •intervals.• So, in theory, it can show me the brake 14• •status at each of those intervals going through.• Do you 15• •want me to look that up in the report right now? 16• • • •Q• • Yeah, I’d like to know if at what point 17• •braking began, if you know that. 18• • • •A• • Sorry, I’m scrolling right back down to the 19• •report. 20• • • •Q• • You’re all right. 21• • • •A• • So it looks like, based on the data I have 22• •here, braking occurred between one and a half and two 23• •seconds prior to the collision. 24• • • •Q• • Okay. 25• • • •A• • And, for the record, this documentation is on •1• •the same page I previously mentioned, pdf page fifty out •2• •of seventy in my report. •3• • • •Q• • Okay.• And you had previously said something •4• •like speed change of five miles an hour in •5• •eighty-six milliseconds.• What did you mean by that? •6• • • •A• • So whenever we get this data from the vehicle •7• •it gives us a couple different things.• It measures two •8• •main factors here, and that’s going to be our speed •9• •change.• But in engineering whenever you have a speed 10• •change, you always have to have that defined over a time 11• •interval.• So what it essentially says is, you know, 12• •we’ve got a measurement for what the overall peak speed 13• •change is.• And we also have an interval, so a time 14• •during the collision where that occurs. 15• • • • • • And if I remember correctly, that peak speed 16• •change occurred starting at, I think, eighty-six. I 17• •don’t remember if it was sixty-eight or eighty-six 18• •seconds -- milliseconds into the collision.• But that’s 19• •where I got this value, was from the report. 20• • • •Q• • And just to clarify, you mean milliseconds, 21• •not seconds? 22• • • •A• • Correct.• Just to clarify, I mean 23• •milliseconds, yes, not seconds. 24• • • •Q• • Okay.• And just to clarify for my question 25• •line earlier, you are not saying that it is impossible •1• •that Mr. Yue suffered a spinal injury in this motor •2• •vehicle crash, correct? •3• • • •A• • Correct.• What I’m looking at is the •4• •mechanisms for specific injuries. •5• • • •Q• • And then you are not saying that it’s •6• •impossible that he suffered a low back injury as a •7• •result of this motor vehicle crash, correct? •8• • • •A• • Correct.• I’m looking at the consistency of •9• •those injuries based on the accident. 10• • • •Q• • And you are also not saying that it’s 11• •impossible for Mr. Yue to have suffered a brain injury 12• •as a result of this motor vehicle crash? 13• • • •A• • Correct.• I am comparing the dynamics with 14• •published literature on head injuries. 15• • • •Q• • Okay.• And,