Articles Posted in Uncategorized

In the case of Anderson v. Jim’s Restaurants, Inc., filed in January 2022 in San Antonio, Texas, the testimony of a Restaurants Expert Witness played a pivotal role in assessing the safety standards and maintenance practices of the establishment.

Background of the Case

Chris and Catherine Anderson were dining at a Jim’s Restaurants location when a large plate glass window suddenly shattered near their table. Glass shards struck both individuals, resulting in injuries and emotional distress. The couple subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking over $1 million in damages, alleging that Jim’s Restaurants, Inc. and its property management affiliate failed to maintain a safe premises and neglected to address a known hazard.

In the case of Concho Resources Inc. v. Ellison, No. 13-20-00055-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2022), the involvement of an Oil & Gas Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing the admissibility of testimony regarding alleged lost production damages in an oil and gas dispute.

Background of the Case

Concho Resources Inc., an oil and gas company operating in Texas, entered into a dispute with Ellison related to alleged interference with oil production from a particular well. Concho claimed that Ellison’s actions caused a significant decline in production, resulting in financial losses. As part of its lawsuit, Concho sought to recover damages for lost production and retained internal technical personnel to support its claims.

In the case of Leon Max v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-37 (U.S. Tax Court 2021), the testimony of an Apparel & Textile Industry Expert Witness was pivotal in evaluating the legitimacy of research and development (R&D) tax credits claimed by a fashion designer.

Background of the Case

Leon Max, a prominent fashion designer and owner of Leon Max, Inc. (LMI), claimed R&D tax credits under Internal Revenue Code Section 41 for activities related to the development of new apparel designs and manufacturing processes. LMI argued that its design and production process met the technical criteria for qualified research and thus qualified for the federal credit.

In the case of People of the State of New York v. Abraham Operations Associates et al., No. 451549/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024), the testimony of a Nursing Homes Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing allegations of financial misconduct and neglect within nursing home facilities.

Background of the Case

In June 2023, the New York Attorney General filed a civil lawsuit against Centers Health Care, its owners, and several related entities, alleging they had systematically diverted nearly $83 million in Medicare and Medicaid funds intended for patient care across four nursing home facilities in New York. According to the complaint, these funds were funneled into real estate and other private business ventures, resulting in dangerously low staffing levels and widespread neglect.

​In the case of MGMTL, LLC v. Strategic Technology Institute, Inc., No. 20-2138 (E.D. La. 2023), the testimony of a Security Management Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing allegations of copyright infringement and breach of contract related to proprietary security software.​

Background of the Case

MGMTL, LLC developed the Security Management and Reporting Tool (SMART), a software application designed to streamline security management processes for the U.S. Department of Defense and related industries. In 2013, MGMTL obtained a registered copyright for SMART. The company entered into a distributor agreement with Strategic Technology Institute, Inc. (STI), allowing STI to advertise, promote, and resell SMART to end-users. However, MGMTL alleged that STI violated this agreement by repackaging SMART as a new software application called Personnel Administrative Security System (PASS), which STI then sold to the Marine Forces Reserve and listed on its General Services Administration (GSA) schedule for $214,094.00 per license.​

​In the case of Valladares v. United States, No. 4:19-CV-02901 (S.D. Tex. 2023), the testimony of a Rescue Expert Witness was pivotal in evaluating the actions of law enforcement during a failed hostage rescue operation.​

Background of the Case

In January 2018, Ulises Valladares was kidnapped from his home in Conroe, Texas, and held for ransom. The FBI tracked the kidnappers to a residence in Houston, where Valladares was found bound and gagged. During the rescue attempt, an FBI agent discharged his weapon, fatally wounding Valladares. Subsequently, Valladares’ family filed a lawsuit against the United States, alleging negligence and wrongful death.​

In the case of Crofts v. Issaquah School District, No. 19-35473 (9th Cir. 2022), the testimony of a School Safety Expert Witness was pivotal in addressing allegations of negligence related to the supervision of a child with special needs.

Background of the Case

The plaintiff, Sandra Crofts, filed a lawsuit against the Issaquah School District after her daughter, A.S., who has special needs, sustained injuries during a school activity. Crofts alleged that the school failed to provide adequate supervision and did not adhere to the individualized education program (IEP) designed to ensure her daughter’s safety. The school district contended that they had followed appropriate protocols and that the injury was an unfortunate accident.

​In the landmark case of Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the role of a Tires Expert Witness was central to the proceedings and had a profound impact on the standards for admitting expert testimony in U.S. courts.​

Background of the Case

On July 6, 1993, Patrick Carmichael was driving his minivan when the right rear tire blew out, leading to a tragic accident that resulted in the death of one passenger and severe injuries to others. Subsequently, Carmichael and the affected parties filed a lawsuit against Kumho Tire Company, asserting that the tire was defective and that this defect was the proximate cause of the accident. A significant portion of their case relied on the testimony of Dennis Carlson, a tire failure analyst. Carlson intended to testify that, based on his expert opinion, a defect in the tire’s manufacture or design was responsible for the blowout. His conclusions were drawn from a visual and tactile inspection of the tire, coupled with the theory that, in the absence of specific physical signs indicating tire abuse, the failure must have been due to a defect.​