Summary: Plaintiff hired an Epidemiology Expert Witness to provide testimony in case related to an herbicide.  The court denied the motion to exclude.

Facts:  This case (Barrera, et al. v. Monsanto Company  – Superior Court of the State of Delaware – May 31st, 2019) involves a products liability claim.  The plaintiffs allege that their cancer was caused by exposure to the defendant’s herbicide product, commonly known as Roundup.  The plaintiffs have hired Epidemiology Expert Witness Dr. Beate Ritz to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Toxicology Expert Witness Mike McCabe of Exigent explains the complexity and consideration required when it comes to Dram Shop litigation.

Serving, drinking, and enjoying alcohol is very much a part of our national culture. In some respects, it’s embedded into Western society, an over-familiarity that feeds into national stereotypes; the French with their love of wine, the British with their love of beer, the Irish and their whiskey, for example. The same cannot be said of any other drug.

With its omnipresence in our society, and the ability to affect our behavior, our choices and our decision-making processes, it is little surprise that alcohol is the cause of thousands of legal cases a year. In the US, one of the more complex legal disputes regarding alcohol is Dram Shop litigation.

Summary: Plaintiff hired a Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness to provide testimony in a personal injury case involving a crane.

Facts:  This case (Kinnerson v. Arena Offshore L P et al – United States District Court – Western District of Louisiana – June 21st, 2019) involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiff alleges that he sustained injuries while being transferred by a crane in a personal basket and that the basket violently struck a railing.  The plaintiff has hired Glenn Hebert, a Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness was excluded because of lack of relevant knowledge and experience.

Facts:  This case (Bermudez v. City of New York – United States District Court – Eastern District of New York – December 21st, 2018) involves the alleged excessive use of force related to the arrest of the plaintiff.  The plaintiff has hired Dr. Ali Guy, M.D. (Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. Guy.

Continue reading

Summary: Railroad Expert Witness testimony related to an injury while working on a locomotive was excluded by the court.

Facts: This case (Wilks v. BNSF Railway Company – United States District Court – Eastern District of Oklahoma – August 27, 2020) involves an injury suffered by the plaintiff while replacing a broken knuckle on a locomotive. The plaintiff hired Railroad Expert Witness David Anthony Rangel to provide testimony on his behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Rangel.

Continue reading

Summary: Professional Engineering Expert Witness testimony excluded in case involving alleged failure to maintain track.

Facts:  This case (Gordon et al v. New England Central Railroad, Inc. – United States District Court – District of Vermont – August 28th, 2019) involves an action against a railroad.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendant failed to properly maintain track facilities.  The plaintiffs claim that a railroad embankment adjacent to the plaintiffs’ property collapsed during a rain event and that the defendant should be held liable.  The plaintiffs have hired Professional Engineering Expert Witness Harvey H. Stone, P.E. to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Securities Expert Witness Not Allowed to Testify in broker-dealer case.

Facts:  This case (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lek Securities Corporation et al – United States District Court – April 8th, 2019) involves securities.  The plaintiff sued the defendant alleging that traders engaged in two schemes to manipulate the securities markets and that they did so through trading at a broker-dealer based in New York.  The plaintiff brought claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”).  The defendants have hired Securities Expert Witness Roger Begelman to provide testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Plaintiff Nell Dysart filed suit against defendant Trustmark claiming that it wrongfully foreclosed on and sold her house. Dysart hired a Real Estate Damages Expert Witness to provide testimony on her behalf. Trustmark filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.  The court denied the motion to exclude.

Facts: This case (Dysart v. Trustmark National Bank et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Alabama – August 19, 2020) involves an alleged wrongful disclosure and sale of a house, owned by the plaintiff Nell Dysart. The plaintiff hired Real Estate Damages Expert Witness Scott Long to provide testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Plaintiff filed suit against defendants related to a traffic stop involving a canine.  Plaintiff hired a Dogs Expert Witness to provide testimony.  Defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert’s testimony.  The court denied the motion.

Facts: This case (Jackson et al v. City of Bloomington et al – United States District Court – Central District of Illinois – January 15th. 2019) involves a traffic stop.  The plaintiff was pulled over by the defendant for allegedly failing to make a complete stop at a stop sign.  The police brought a canine unit to the scene to conduct a free-air sniff for drugs.  The plaintiffs allege that the officer did not have a legal justification to search the car and that the city has practices policies and customs of prompting false alerts from dogs and improperly training canines.  The plaintiffs have hired Dogs Expert Witness Lehman Papet to provide testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude the testimony of this expert witness.

Continue reading

Summary: The court ruled that the testimony of an Obstetrics & Gynecology (OB/GYN) Expert Witness should not be allowed in a medical malpractice case involving a child with cerebral palsy.

Facts: This case (Gonzalez-Arroyo v. Doctors’ Center Hospital Bayamon, Inc. et al – United States District Court – District of Puerto Rico – August 5, 2020) involves a medical malpractice claim.  The plaintiff claims that the defendant hospital and doctor should be held liable for his son’s cerebral palsy which could have been prevented by stopping the child’s loss of oxygen at birth.  In order to prove his case, the plaintiff hired Obstetrics & Gynecology (OB/GYN) Expert Witness Dr. Barry Schifrin to testify on his behalf.

Continue reading