Loss of Earnings - 11.23 - "The value of lost time, earnings, salaries and loss or impairment of earning capacity."
Medical Expenses - 11.25 - "The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment and services and the reasonable expense of future medical care, treatment and services."
Pre Existing Condition - 11.26 - "The aggravation of a previous injury, disease or condition."
Disfigurement/Deformity - 11.27 - "Disfigurement or deformity resulting from injury."
Mental Anguish - 11.28 - "Fright, humiliation, or mental anguish experienced by plaintiff due to the Aincident."
3.  Compensatory Damage Foundation.
The requirements of proof on all economic damages are:
a. Proof of the fact of past loss;
b. Proof of the probability of future loss;
c. Proof of the causal linkage (e.g., proximate cause) between each category of past and future loss and the tortfeasor's misconduct; and
d. Proof of the reasonable value of each existing or anticipated loss.

The evidentiary sources of this proof depends somewhat on the circumstances of the particular case, but invariably calls on a mix of lay and expert witnesses, documentary and other demonstrative evidence and illustrative exhibits which synthesize complex or cumbersome facts and, ideally, convey succinct memorable messages.  Typically, proof of economic damages incurred through the date of mediation or trial rely predominantly on lay evidence and simple mathematic computation.  Proof of future economic damages, on the other hand, is largely expert dependant.
4.  Issue of reasonable certainty and speculation.
A plaintiff is not required to prove compensatory losses  with absolute  certainty.  There is inherent tension between the expectation damage principle, which affords recovery for future losses that are probable, and the uncertainty proviso, which instructs that damages are not recoverable beyond what the evidence shows with reasonable certainty.  Courts are admonished to reject future loss awards that are based on speculation.  Jurors are inclined to perceive most future loss calculations and prognostications as somewhat speculative.  Defense counsel are conditioned to characterize every prospective damage as the product of guess work. Uncertain or speculative damage claims are precluded only where the fact of damage is uncertain, not where the amount is uncertain. Once the existence of a loss is established, it is sufficient if the evidence affords a reasonable basis for estimating the amount of loss by the trier of fact. Generally, any uncertainty in calculating the amount or extent of anticipated loss should be resolved against the defendant.
5.  Major Elements of Economic Loss
There are three major components of economic damages:  (a) income, benefits, and earning capacity; (b) medical, caregiver, and life care expenses; and (c) replacement services.  Maximizing recoveries in each of these areas requires the consulting services and testimony of multiple "experts"
a.  Calculating Future Losses

Calculating past financial losses is straightforward, and accomplished via tax returns, W2 and 1099 forms.  If such forms are not available, an annual Social Security earning and wage statement may be sufficient to establish past earnings.  Future losses, on the other hand, present the biggest challenge and the largest opportunity for recovery, both economic and noneconomic. 
The categories of future damages which typically require actuarial calculation and expert assistance are lost earnings and employment benefits (particularly retirement and health insurance), medical and caregiver expenses and, broadly applied,  replacement services.
A paradigm of future economic losses are set forth as follows:
1.Base amount of loss or expense
2.Frequency estimate
3.Time or duration
4.Comparative or mitigating influences
5.Rates of inflation or growth
6.Impairment of earning capacity
7.Lost benefits
8.Worklife and retirement expectancy
9.Gender and race bias
,                                   10. Average wage growth
b.  Calculating Medical Expense

The evidentiary requirement for establishing past and future medical and related health care expenses are overlooked until an approaching deadline for expert disclosure or a pretrial conference.  Medical expenses (both past and future) should be considered an integral part of the entire case and typically the largest element of damages.   Reasons for giving continuing attention to medical expenses
1.They are the category of recoverable damages provable with the highest degree of precision and most readily acceptable to the jury in formulating an award.
2.They provide the framework against which you can convincingly argue pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life, and a yardstick against which judges, jurors, defense counsels, and adjusters frequently measure the magnitude of injury.
3.They are the key to identifying pivotal experts and support witnesses early in the case and developing succinct evidence with maximum persuasive potential.
4.They help identify collateral sources of payment and potential subrogation liens.
5.Inattention to detail on medical expenses risks disrupting the flow of the trial and invites challenges on foundational proof with potentially disastrous results.
It is essential to confirm that the injuries requiring medical treatment were proximately caused by the occurrence which is the subject of the action or claim.  This is not just an issue of recovery on medical bills, but a necessary aspect of proof on the noneconomic losses related to injuries, as well.  Although the causal linkage is often obvious and can be circumstantially inferred, there is no reason to risk the court or jurors missing the connection by omitting simple, straightforward proximate cause testimony.  In the complex case, this will require expert testimony, particularly if preexisting conditions are an issue.

It is equally essential to show that the treatment was reasonably necessary and appropriate to the plaintiff's condition or injury.  In routine cases the connection may appear obvious, but to avoid problems all that is generally required is a simple set of questions to a competent witness, confirming that the treatment provided and the attendant expense were reasonably necessary in the witness's professional or otherwise informed judgment.
Indiana requires proof that the cause and necessity of a client's medical treatment in terms of a Areasonable degree of medical certainty@ or applying other variations on that same theme of probability.  These standards of proof may be only significant to lawyers and judges, but fulfilling the requisites with precision is critical.  It is important to review the foundational standard with your expertsCparticularly treating physiciansCand script out the key questions and answers in advance of deposition and trial testimony.
The foundational requirements for introducing evidence of future medical expenses is the same as each of the elements for past expenses, with a few vitally important extra considerations.  The most significant difference is in the area of medical necessity; namely, whether further treatment and care is probable and whether the character of treatment and care anticipated is appropriate and reasonable.  The fundamental elements may be the same as with past expenses, but the quality and quantity of proof is very different.
1.Expert proof
With rare exception, unless the connections are matters of common knowledge, expect testimony will be required to prove causation, probable necessity, and reasonableness on future medical and caregiver expenses.
2.Probability

Proof of a probable future expense only requires that it is "more likely than not" to occur; stated differently, that there is greater than a "50‑50 chance."
3.Speculation
As with other aspects of economic damages (see supra, at pp. 2‑4), the rule that prohibits recovery for speculative losses should be properly appreciated.  The character of future loss, with an associated treatment need and expense, must only be shown with reasonable certainty, e.g., it is probable the loss will occur.  Any proof that affords a reasonable basis for determining the amount is sufficient.
4.Statistical proof
With certain maladies and medical conditions (lung cancer, for example), statistical proof may be available to help an expert prognosticate the likely course of changes in the plaintiff's health, treatment needs, and expense.
As each aspect of past and future medical and caregiver expense is measured against each of the above elements of evidentiary foundation, the level of competence required of the foundational witnessCwhether as lay, expert or special witnessCbecomes apparent.  On issues of causation, necessity and probability testimony from a cooperative treating physician is probably best.  On the reasonableness of medical expenses, however, a properly credentialed nurse or rehabilitation specialist may work better and will avoid cluttering the important messages of the treating physician's testimony with minutia.  For authentication of medical bills and other specials, the plaintiff or a family member is usually a competent witness.  Surprisingly, physicians and other providers may not be able to authenticate their own bills.  So, consider calling a custodian of medical and accounting records for the health care provider.

In wrongful death cases, most jurisdictions allow recovery for loss of household services.  In seeking this recovery, it is a common practice to itemize services like household repairs, cooking, washing, managing finances, and so on, previously performed by the decedent, estimating the frequency of their occurrence, and valuing the cost of replacement utilizing wage rates for comparable services in a labor market.  This same conceptual approach of placing a precise economic value on a seemingly intangible loss has potential application in other dimensions of the damage case, as well; even in personal injury actions.
B. Should You Use a Trial Consultant or Mock Trial
1.  Jury Consultant
A jury or trial consultant is an individual with expertise in trial presentation, preparation, themes and jury selection.  While there is no recognized training for trial consultants, frequent occupations include, psychologists, neuro linguistic programmers, or counselors.  Expense varies between trial consultants, primarily based on experience, services provided and nature and extent of involvement.  A trial consultant can be invaluable in a large damage case, such that the expense of the same is justified by the potential verdict range. 
In a large damage case, a trial consultant should be involved early in the litigation process.  It is important to begin theme development during the discovery process so that the theme may be intertwined throughout case development.  Such a consultant may assist in theme development, as well as work with key witnesses (including the plaintiff) who may not otherwise be familiar with the litigation process.

A jury consultant may also assist in the creation of demonstrative aids, jury questionnaires, exhibits and the like.  During voir dire, a jury consultant may be helpful in attempting to de-select potentially biased jurors or those individuals with preconceived negative beliefs.  Finally, a jury consultant may assist in conducting focus groups or mock trials.
2.  Focus Group
A focus group is a representative gathering of potential jurors.  The participants can be strangers, friends, or participants from previous focus groups.  A focus group provides you an opportunity to obtain feedback by having a number of people sit through a shortened version of a trial, portions of a trial, or testimony of a particular witness.  Focus groups are sometimes called mock trials and can easily be customized for whatever needs you may have.
One of the most important uses of focus groups is to help develop effective themes for cases.  Every case needs a theme.  There can be many themes under the same set of facts, but there is usually one that best fits the case.  Focus groups can help us figure out which theme will be the most effective.  When laypeople sit around and discuss a case, it is amazing how their characterization of a case can be right on the money and provide a theme for the case that the lawyers would never think of.

Focus groups allow lawyers to assess how potential jurors will receive their clients and witnesses.  Focus groups also give the clients a chance to get some excellent feedback on how well they perform, how persuasive they are as witnesses, and what they can do to make their testimony more effective.  Clients can testify live or be presented by video.  The advantage of having clients testify live is that it makes the testimony more realistic and gives the clients a chance to practice their testimony in a setting that closely resembles a trial.  When presenting a client's live testimony to a focus group, we normally use two attorneys‑one does a direct examination of the client and the other conducts the cross‑examination.  Hard questions should be asked on cross‑examination.  The cross‑examination of the plaintiffs should be better than it will be at trial.  Every weakness of the testimony should be raised on cross‑examination.  We then usually open the witness up to the focus group members for any questions that they have concerning the testimony. 
If the focus group is being conducted in a setting that allows visual monitoring from a different room, the clients will be able to watch and listen to the focus group discuss their testimony.  The clients will be able to see and hear what people think about them as witnesses and they can gain insight into how they can be better witnesses.  It is also helpful to video the clients when they are giving live testimony so that they can later go back and watch themselves testify.  By listening to the comments of a focus group and seeing themselves on video, clients will have a better appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses than they would by just listening to their lawyers critique them.

A successful focus group should include an unbiased, yet shortened presentation, covering both sides of the dispute.  After the presentation, the mock jurors are asked a series of carefully crafted questions, to determine issues that are important, are not important and questions that the jury would like answered, but were not otherwise covered.  Having formed an emotional bond with a case, it is easy to either lose sight of the big picture or fail to realize the importance of secondary aspects of the case.  A fresh outlook obtained through a focus group that has not been associated with the case has often opened our eyes and allowed us to see more clearly the strengths and weaknesses of the case before trial. A properly conducted focus group, or better yet, a series of properly conducted focus groups, can be a tremendous help in determining a realistic verdict range.  Focus groups can highlight elements of damages that are most important and which elements of damage to downplay or even abandon.  Loss of consortium is an issue that often presents a dilemma in certain cases.  Do you present the issue to the jury or not?  Does a claim for loss of consortium make your clients appear greedy and actually reduce the verdict for the spouse who has the actual injury?  Is a scar bad enough to ask a jury to compensate the plaintiff for it, or is the plaintiff better off not asking for money for a scar, or asking for a small amount for the scar and focusing instead on other more significant damages?  Focus groups can help answer these and similar questions.

Focus groups can let you know if your clients are perceived as legitimately hurt or are whiners.  Determining how potential jurors perceive your clients is probably the single most important aspect of evaluating the plaintiff's damages.  If your clients are viewed as malingerers or are not liked by the focus group, then their case is obviously worth less unless your clients can change how they are perceived.  A focus group can help identify the reasons the plaintiff is viewed unfavorably.  You and your clients can then work on these issues to see if they can change the way that they are perceived.           Subsequent focus groups can then let you and your clients know if they are capable of changing their presentation to make them more likable.  What you learn will provide valuable guidance in determining the value of the case and whether your clients should settle or go to trial. In addition, a focus group results may demonstrate to a difficult client, serious issues of liability or damages. 
C. Effectively Prepare Key Witnesses to Testify for Deposition and Trial
1.  Preparation of the Lay Witness
As set forth above, a trial or jury consultant may be useful in preparing a client or key witnesses for deposition and/or trial testimony.  Most lay witnesses are foreign to the litigation process, and certainly testifying before a judge and a jury at trial.  It is worth the time, effort and expense to invest in a witness preparation video.  Such a video will establish basic ground rules and client expectations at such proceedings, in addition to answering basic questions about the legal process.  If the case is proceeding to trial, schedule a time to meet the client at the courtroom.  Have the client sit at counsel table; sit in the witness box; and, sit in the jury box.  This experience will assist the client to be more comfortable and relaxed for their "day in court".
The basics of witness preparation are fundamental and important.  There is no substitute to interacting with the client or witness before their testimony.  Keep in mind that if you do not like your client, the odds are likely that the defense lawyer, adjuster, judge and jury will not like your client either.  As a result, follow these steps in witness preparation:
1.Each witness should be prepared by the lawyer who will be leading his or her testimony at trial, individually.

2.Review with the witness all previous testimony, examinations for discovery, answers to interrogatories, written and oral statements, and any other material which could be used for possible impeachment.  Explain to the witness how the impeachment process may be used by the opposing lawyer with respect to prior inconsistent statements.  If necessary, read the information to the client or witness.  Do not presume that the witness can read, and if so, that the witness actually understands what is written or its potential impact.
3.Review with the witness all exhibits he or she will identify or authenticate, explaining the foundation requirements for each exhibit and how they are intended to be used in court.
4.Review this witness's testimony in the context of the probable testimony of other witnesses to see if there are any inconsistencies.  If there are, look for explanations for the inconsistencies that can be used by the witness to explain to the court the reason for the inconsistencies.
5.Prepare the direct examination of the witness and review it with the witness repeatedly.  Make sure the witness can actually testify to what you anticipate he or she can, and make sure that the foundation is established for all necessary exhibits.  Once the general outline has been set forth, go over the actual questions in light of evidentiary requirements.  Explain why you cannot use leading questions, and continue your preparation until the witness is thoroughly familiar with the questions and can answer them in the clearest, most accurate way.  Preparation should never continue to the point where the testimony sounds memorized or rehearsed.
6.After the direct examination has been prepared, review with the witness the areas that cross‑examination will cover, explaining the rules of cross‑examination and the purposes.  Have an associate do a sample cross‑examination of the witness.  Counsel the witness to keep his or her answers brief and direct, and to only answer the question asked.

7.Explain to the witness the demeanor that he or she should employ in the courtroom, and that he or she should dress neatly and conservatively appropriate to his or her background.  Explain how he or she should stand, the administration of the oath, and to address his or her answers to the judge or the jury as the case may be.
8.Prepare the witness for his or her courtroom testimony, explaining that these rules will affect the way the court and jury will evaluate the witness and his or her testimony:
a.  Listen carefully to every question and answer only that question, without volunteering extraneous information.
b.  If you do not understand a question, say so, and counsel will rephrase it, and don't be afraid to acknowledge that you can't remember an answer if you genuinely have a memory lapse.  Use approximations for dates, times, and distances, and try to give positive, clear, and direct answers to every question.  Avoid the use of the vernacular, or the use of technical language typically unfamiliar to the witness.
c.  Be serious and polite at all times, without exaggeration or understatement.  Cute or clever answers are forbidden, and the witness should never argue with counsel or the judge.  Resist the temptation to lose your temper with questions that are potentially uncomfortable.
d.  Testimony is typically restricted to what the witness personally saw, heard, and did.  The witness can generally not testify to what others know, or to conclusions, opinions, and speculations.

e.  If an objection is made by either side to any question or answer, stop and wait for the judge to rule.  If the judge overrules the objection answer the question, and if the judge sustains the objection, never try to squeeze an answer in when an objection has been made.
f.  Explain the purposes of direct, cross, re‑direct, and re‑cross and the forms of questions employed in each type of examination.
g.  Explain trick questions that the other side may ask, such as "have you talked to anyone about this case."  Explain how such questions can be accurately and fairly answered.
h.  Above all, remain courteous and always tell the complete truth according to your best recollection of the facts and events involved.
Many attorneys prepare a complete question and answer outline for use at trial.  Under this method every question you intend to ask and the witness's anticipated answer is written out.  If you use this method, do not show the actual written questions and answers to the witness as opposing counsel may ask the writer if he or she prepared or saw any outlines of his or her examination.  The disadvantage is that unless you are a skilled actor, your questions will sound as if they are being read from a script.  However, such a technique is impressive on cross examination of a hostile witness.  Prepare the questions and answers in advance, with citations to impeachment material at your fingertips.  Not only will the jury be impressed with concise examination, but empowered with readily available impeachment material.

Many attorneys employ a narrative manner for purposes of direct examination on friendly witnesses.  Under this method you write out in outline form what the witness will say and do on direct.  You then simply follow the narrative, posing questions that will elicit the desired answers.  This will have the advantage of fresh‑sounding and spontaneous answers and allow you to retain flexibility during the direct examination.
2.  Preparation of the Expert Witness
Once you have passed pretrial motions attacking your expert, you will have the opportunity to present the expert's testimony to the jury.  Before the expert has the opportunity to give and discuss his or her opinion, a proper foundation must be laid.  First, the expert must be introduced to the jury and qualified.  This introductory phase of the testimony presents an excellent opportunity to personalize the expert.  Working with an expert before trial can help to develop a rapport between yourself and the expert.  If there is a connection between you and the expert witness, the jury is more likely to pick up on it and develop a more favorable opinion of the expert.  The reverse is also true.
In qualifying the expert, there is a risk of losing the jury's attention and interest.  Long and tedious accounts of educational background and practical experience can lure a jury into boredom and indifference.  When a witness is first called, the jurors are highly interested in why the witness is before them and what they have to say.  Taking more time than necessary to qualify the witness runs the risk of losing the jury's focus.  The expert's credentials should be covered enough to qualify him or her to testify and to sufficiently impress the jury with credentials and credibility.  You must keep this in mind while preparing for the direct examination of an expert witness.  The introductory phase sets the stage for subsequent testimony.  In order to maximize expert testimony, the stage must be set in the beginning by effectively qualifying and personalizing.

After introducing and qualifying the expert, the purpose of the expert's testimony must be addressed.  In response to direct questioning, the expert will explain the issue he or she will testify about and the related scientific or technical principles.  It is important that the expert take this opportunity to engage the jury and teach the underlying technical or scientific principles that form the basis of his or her opinion.  You should work with the expert before trial to develop a classroom type testimony that captures the interest of the jury.  The expert must use easy to understand language, examples, and analogies.  We have found that the jury follows the "are you familiar with a certain medical term" and "will you please explain to us what that means" to be an effective way of teaching the jury the basic background necessary to appreciate and accept the opinions which will follow.
Expert witnesses should summarize and explain to the jury complex scientific concepts, such as complex injuries and treatment.  Testimony can describe concepts in general terms and address specifics by use of demonstrative evidence.  For example, testimony of general descriptions of injuries can recount daily activities of an injured patient along with the type of daily treatment received.  Life care planners and caregivers are best able to explain what the life of the victim has become in terms the jury can understand.  We recommend letting the client maximize the optimistic goals as much as possible.

After the witness is qualified and the technical and scientific foundation has been laid for the opinion, use of demonstrative evidence can be valuable in persuading the jury.  The use of demonstrative evidence at trial has two goals.  Not only will it increase the likelihood of a favorable verdict for one's client, but it can also make damage awards higher by better educating the jury of the damages your client has suffered.  At trial, the effective use of demonstrative evidence will pique the interest of the jurors and assist the jury in understanding your case.  Studies have shown that the ability to comprehend information is vastly enhanced by coupling verbal with visual communication.  By allowing jurors to visually grasp points, e.g., using charts, graphs, and models, in addition to hearing testimony, an attorney dramatically increases the likelihood that the jury will remember the data when it comes time to deliberate.  However, the attorney must remember that while a trial is, in part, a show or performance, if the use of demonstrative evidence is overdone, it may detract from, rather than enhance the case.
D.  How to Prepare a Damages Case Through Medical Testimony
A.  The Ground Rules.  The Indiana Rules of Evidence.

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

(a) If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
*For a witness to qualify as an expert:
1.  The subject matter must be distinctly related to some scientific field, business, or profession beyond the knowledge of the average layperson; and,
2.  The witness must be shown to have sufficient skill, knowledge, or experience in that area so that the opinion will aid the trier of fact.

*Where an expert's testimony is based upon the expert's skill or experience, the proponent of the testimony must only demonstrate that the subject matter is related to some field beyond the knowledge of lay persons and that the witness possesses sufficient skill, knowledge or experience in the field to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.
* Where an expert's testimony is based upon scientific principles, the proponent of the testimony must also establish that the scientific principles upon which the testimony rests are reliable.  Then the 702(b) requirement is necessary.
*Assigns to the trial court a gatekeeping function of ensuring that an expert witness' testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.  Knowledge admissible under this rule must connote more than a subjective belief or unsupported speculation.
(b) Expert scientific testimony is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the scientific principles upon which the expert testimony rests are reliable.

*No specific "test" or "set of prongs" which must be considered by the Court to satisfy this requirement.  Indiana Courts may consider the five factors set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).  Such factors include:
1.  Whether the theory or technique at issue can be and has been tested;
2.  Whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication;

3.  The known or potential rate of error;
4.  The existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; and,
5. Whether the Technique is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
The Daubert factors are not binding on the determination of issues under 702, but their utility is recognized by Indiana Courts.
*Focus on principles and methodology, not on conclusions.
*Opinion can not be based on mere coincidence.

Rule 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts

The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. Experts may testify to opinions based on inadmissible evidence, provided that it is of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.

Rule 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue

(a) Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
(b) Witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions.

Rule 705. Disclosure of Facts or Data Underlying Expert Opinion

The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give reasons therefore without first testifying to the underlying facts or data, unless the court requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination.
The United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., that was intended to "liberal[ize]" federal evidence practices and abolish the requirement that expert opinion must represent consensus views. It was anticipated that Daubert would reduce the frequency and intensity of judicial scrutiny of expert opinions.  In reality, it has had the opposite effect in Federal Court.
Trial lawyers throughout Indiana have carefully watched how the Indiana Supreme Court would respond to Daubert.  Thankfully, for both the plaintiff and defense bar the Indiana Supreme Court has taken a common sense approach to the admissibility of expert testimony, and has recognized that Daubert was intended to liberalize the rules concerning the admissibility of expert testimony.

 The Indiana Supreme Court has held that it is not bound to follow the Daubert approach, and recognized that Daubert was intended to liberalize the rules concerning the admissibility of expert testimony.  Further, unlike the approach that is often utilized in the federal courts, the Indiana Supreme Court has made it clear that it does not want Indiana trial judges to over-analyze every aspect of an expert's testimony in making the initial admissibility determination.  The Court has recognized that it is the function of the jury in our system of justice that is empowered to determine the weight to be given to the testimony of all witnesses, including expert witnesses.
The nature and extent of the evidence that must be submitted to and Indiana trial court to satisfy the reliability analysis of Rule 702 depends on the nature of the testimony in question. Thus, the Indiana Supreme Court in McGrew v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1289 (Ind. 1997), decided that the complexity of the scientific principles underlying the subject matter of the expert testimony would determine the complexity of the foundation necessary to support the admissibility of the testimony.  The Court held that:
Inherent in any reliability analysis is the understanding that, as the scientific principles become more advanced and complex, the foundation required to establish reliability will necessarily become more advanced and complex as well.  The converse is just as applicable, as demonstrated by the trial court's conclusion that "what we're talking about is not the traditional scientific evaluation.  We are talking about simply a person's observations under a microscope."

In its' decision in Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2000), the Indiana Supreme Court made it clear that it was not going to require the trial court to conduct "mini-trials" in making the reliability analysis under Rule 702.  Further, the Court emphasized that the general principles and general methodologies underlying the expert's testimony where to be examined, as opposed to an examination of every aspect of the expert's testimony.  Specifically, the Court cautioned trial courts in Indiana to not attempt to micro-manage the admissibility of expert testimony so as to eliminate the vital role assigned to the jury to ultimately determine the weight that any testimony will be accorded.
  In Sears, the testimony of two physicians was challenged at trial as unreliable and therefore inadmissable.  The physicians expressed the opinion that the plaintiff suffered from symptoms of post-concussion syndrome which adversely affected his ability to return to his former employment.  The defendant challenged this testimony on various grounds, including the allegation that the testimony was not scientifically reliable.  The trial court overruled the defendant's objections and the testimony was admitted at trial. 

On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals examined in great detail the testimony of each of the physician experts, and ruled that the testimony was not reliable under 702(b) and thus should not have been admitted into evidence by the trial court.  Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Manuilov, 715 N.E.2d 968 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).  Further, the Indiana Court of Appeals encouraged trial courts to hold separate pre-trial Daubert hearings whenever a 702(b) challenge was made to expert testimony.  Id. at 993, n.20.  The scope of such a hearing would have required the party offering the expert testimony to bring his expert to the hearing and engage in a mini-trial in virtually every case.
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision in Sears and at the outset of its discussion concerning the admissibility of expert testimony implicitly rejected the suggestion by the Court of Appeals that trial courts should routinely conduct separate Daubert hearings before trial.  "In adopting evidence rule 702, this court did not intend to interpose an unnecessarily burdensome procedure or methodology for trial courts."  Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Manuilov, 742 N.E.2d 453, 460 (Ind. 2001).
The Supreme Court next observed that the adoption of Rule 702 "reflected an intent to liberalize, rather than to constrict, the admission of reliable scientific evidence."  Id.  Further, the court reemphasized its earlier decisions that although potentially helpful, Federal Court opinions interpreting Daubert are not binding on Indiana Courts in deciding evidentiary issues.  Id. at n.5

In the most critical passage in the opinion, the Indiana Supreme Court instructed trial courts to consider the general principles and general methodology underlying the reliability of an expert's testimony, leaving the accuracy, consistency, and credibility of the testimony to be determined by the trier of fact after testimony has been subjected to the adversarial process at trial.  If applied to separately evaluate every subsidiary point made during the testimony of a qualified expert regarding matters based on reliable science, Rule 702(b) can become excessively burdensome to the fair and efficient administration of justice.  It directs the trial court to consider the underlying reliability of the general principles involved in the subject matter of the testimony, but does not require the trial court to reevaluate and micro manage each subsidiary element of an expert's testimony within the subject.   Once the trial court is satisfied that the expert's testimony will assist the trier of fact and that the expert's general methodology is based on reliable scientific principles, then the accuracy, consistency, and credibility of the expert's opinions may properly be left to vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, argument of counsel, and resolution by the trier of fact.  Id. at 461.
Applying these principles to the physician's testimony at trial, the Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony.  Likewise, the Court rejected the argument that the doctor's testimony about the affects of post-concussion syndrome on plaintiff's ability to return to work as a high-wire circus performer was unreliable.  Emphasizing the lack of complexity in the doctor's testimony in this regard, the Court stated as follows:
The doctor's testimony that the severe blow to the head from the plaintiff's fall resulting in continuing dizziness and headaches and preventing him from returning to his career as high-wire performer is not a matter necessarily restricted to the province of a vocational expert knowledgeable about the requirements of circus high-wire artistry.  That dizziness would substantially affect the plaintiff's capacity to perform on the high-wire is a matter of common sense, and does not require  vocational expertise.
Id. at 461.
Following Sears, the Appellate Court in Pinkins v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1079, 1087 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), summarized Sears into a two part test holding that: