by

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

by

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

by

Summary: Railroad Expert Witness testimony not allowed in personal injury case as the defense argued that he was not qualified to offer testimony in this case.

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

by

Summary: Three experts including an Auto Insurance Expert Witness, were partially allowed to testify in part in a bad faith insurance dispute regarding insurance company’s failure to pay claims on time.

Facts: Patsy Ambrose vs State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 20-1011 Section “E” (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana) involves an insurance claims dispute. Plaintiffs Patsy and Ted Ambrose were driving when another driver struck their vehicle. The Plaintiffs allegedly suffered crippling injuries from the incident. Following the incident, Patty and Ted submitted proof of injuries to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The plaintiffs filed suit after alleging that State Farm failed to pay within the suggested time period. The defendants hired Auto Insurance Expert witness Dr. Everett Robert to provide expert witness testimony. The plaintiffs, Patsy and Ted Ambrose, filed a motion to exclude Dr. Everett Robert, and two other expert witnesses’ testimonies in the case.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Discussion: The case centered around the alleged minimal impact of the crash and its relation to the plaintiffs claims for payment. The plaintiff argued that Dr. Everett Robert was not qualified to speak on if the impact of the crash was enough to cause property damage or injuries.. After agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, Dr. Robert would not be allowed to testify regarding the low impact of the collision or injuries because of his lack of expertise in biomechanics and accident reconstruction.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness testimony excluded despite defendant’s argument that he was not qualified to offer testimony

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

by

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

by

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

by

Summary:  Statistics Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony even though the defendant argued that his opinion should be excluded due to inconsistencies and errors.

Facts:  This case (Cone et al v. Sanitarios Lamosa S.A. DE C.V. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – September 17th, 2019) involves a claim of alleged manufacturing and/or marketing defects of ceramic toilet tanks made by the the defendant.  The plaintiff has hired Shawn Casper, Ph.D. (Statistics Expert Witness) to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of this witness.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Epidemiology Expert Witness allowed to testify in products liability case despite arguments that she changed her testimony.

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

by

Summary: Professional Engineering Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony in part even though the defendant argued that the expert’s opinions would not assist the trier of fact.

Facts:  This case (Leftridge v. Speedway LLC – United States District Court – Northern District of Indiana – October 10th, 2019) involves a slip and fall claim.  The plaintiff Tayell Leftridge alleges that the defendant Speedway should be liable for injuries that she suffered when she slipped and fell on a wet floor at one of defendant’s stores in Hobart, Indiana.  The plaintiff has hired H. Richard Hicks (Professional Engineering Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading