Expert Witness Blog

Summary: Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness testimony is allowed because the court ruled that his expert opinion was not speculative because his testimony mirrored that of the state standard in Texas.

Facts:  This case (Connell West Trucking Co., Inc. et al v. Estes Express Lines et al – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – November 22, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  One of the plaintiffs, Gucharan Singh, is seeking damages for future medical expenses for the injuries to his knee.  The plaintiff hired Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness Dr. Robert Montgomery to provide expert testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Internal Medicine Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the plaintiff argued that the expert did not act within the standard of care when she did not contact an on-call physician.

Facts:  This case (Griffin v. Coffee County et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Georgia – August 19, 2022) involves a wrongful death action involving a prisoner who died while in custody.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the decedent’s (Shannon Rewis) standard of care because they left him in an observation cell when they found out that Mr. Lewis had ingested methamphetamine, rather than providing treatment or sending him somewhere else to receive care.  The defendants have hired Internal Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Robert Hall to provide an expert opinion on this case.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Cybersecurity Expert Witness testimony allowed in part as the court decided that the expert’s testimony was reliable based on his experience in cypersecurity forensics.

Facts:  This case (Savidge et al v. Pharm-Save, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Western District of Kentucky – March 31, 2023) involves a data breach claim.  The plaintiffs Andrea Savidge and Beth Lynch, former employees of the defendant, claim that Pharm-Save should be held liable for a data-breach in which sensitive and personal information was compromised.  The complaint maintains that a few Pharma-Save employees released this information to cyber-criminals who posed as company executives.  To assist their case, the plaintiffs hired Cybersecurity Expert Witness Vincent D’Agostino to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Economics Expert Witness allowed to testify in employment lawsuit even though the defendants argued that his testimony was not reliable.

Facts:  This case (Ferraro v. Convercent, Inc. et al – United States District Court – District of Colorado – December 12th, 2018) involves an employment dispute.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant wrongfully discharged him.  To assist in his case, the plaintiff hired Dr. Michael Orlando (Economics Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. Orlando.

Continue reading

Summary: Hotel & Hospitality Expert Witness deemed allowed to testify as the court opined that the expert opinions have a sufficient basis in the alleged facts of the case even though the expert recreated records provided by the plaintiff’s son.

Facts:  This case (Patel v. Patel et al – United States District Court – Western District of Oklahoma – January 4th, 2019) involves a family dispute over family dealings.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants shorted him when they distributed proceeds from a sale of a hotel business.  The plaintiff seeks to recover the claimed shortfall and other damages under the legal theories of breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraud.  The defendants have counterclaimed for breach of loan contracts, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion, and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff has hired Hotel & Hospitality Expert Witness Bishok Dhungana to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony in this case.

Continue reading

Summary: Obstetrics & Gynecology (OB/GYN) Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the expert testified that his opinion on the injuries were based on his own experience and expertise.

Facts:  This case (RASCHELLE GOFF V KAREN L NIVER MD – State of Michigan – Court of Appeals – June 18th, 2019) involves a medical malpractice claim.  The plaintiff argues that during the birth of her baby, she suffered three injuries.  The plaintiff sued the defendant doctor and hospital alleging that the doctor violated the standard of case by not recognizing and surgically repairing a sphincter tear and retrovaginal tear following the delivery of her baby.  The plaintiff hired Obstetrics & Gynecology (OB/GYN) Expert Witness Dr. Robert Dein to provide testimony on her behalf.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. Dein.  The lower court granted the motion to exclude.  This is the appeal.

Continue reading

Summary: Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness testimony allowed because the expert’s use of the term “non-severe disability” is founded on a valid methodology.

Facts:  This case (TELMANOSKI et al v. BONEFISH GRILL, LLC et al – United States District Court – District of New Jersey – November 29, 2022)  involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiffs, Robert Telmanoski and Donna Brandz, allege that Telmanoski was delivering food to a Bonefish Grill in New Jersey and slipped on a piece of paper while inside the restaurant and suffered numerous injuries.  In order to prove his case, Telmanoski hired Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness Dr. Joseph T. Crouse to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert witness testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Labor Economics Expert Witness testimony is allowed because the court ruled that her expert opinions on the calculation of damages will help the jury.

Facts:  This case (EEOC v. Jackson National Life Insurance Company, et al – United States District Court – District of Colorado – March 31, 2023), involves an employment discrimination claim brought by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).  The plaintiff, La’Tonya Ford, alleges that, after she moved to the defendant’s Denver office, she was discriminated against based on her sex, color, and race.  She claims that she was passed over for promotions even though she was a top performer in the office.  To enhance her case, the plaintiff hired Labor Economics Expert Witness Dr. Patricia Pacey to provide expert witness testimony on here behalf.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: A Weather & Meteorology Expert Witness allowed to testify, in part, in fire litigation caused by lightning despite objections from the plaintiffs that his testimony would not assist the trier of fact.

Facts:  This case (Philmar Dairy, LLC et al v. Armstrong Farms, et al – United States District Court – District of New Mexico – July 12th, 2019) involves a dispute over the delivery of alfalfa hay.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendant did not deliver over 2,500 tons of hay and did not refund the money to the plaintiffs.  The defendants state that a fire caused lightning destroyed the hay.  The plaintiffs state that the defendants fabricated the existence of the fire.  The defendants hired Dr. Elizabeth Austin (Weather & Meteorology Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony even though the defendant’s argued that he was not qualified to offer an opinion on miters saws as he does not have the requisite experience on the topic.

Facts:  This case (Landi et al v. Home Depot USA, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – September 24th, 2019) involves a products liability claim.  The plaintiff claims that he was injured while using a miter saw manufactured by the defendant and purchased from Home Depot.  The plaintiff alleges that he was using the saw to cut crown molding, operating the saw with his right hand and holding the crown molding with his left.  The plaintiff claims that while the blade was spinning, the crown molding was pulled to the right and the plaintiff’s left arm was pulled as well.  The blade subsequently cut into the plaintiff’s left forearm.  The plaintiff hired Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness Dr. Charles E. Benedict to provide expert witness testimony and the defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading