Articles Posted in Daubert

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: 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

Summary: The court ruled that a Urology Expert Witness will be able to testify in a medical malpractice case.

Facts: In this case (Robert Teel v. United States of America – United States District Court – Northern District of Oklahoma – January 7th, 2020) involves a medical malpractice claim brought by Mr. Teel, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. Teel was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2016 and was being treated at the Claremore Indian Hospital.

Tell claims that Claremore Indian Hospital delayed and made his cancer worse by not referring him to a urologist and administering testosterone injections.  Mr. Teel hired a Urology Expert Witness  Dr. Marc Steven Milsten to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The defendant claims that Dr. Milsten’s opinions are not reliable and based on speculation.

Continue reading

Expert Witness Summary: Breast Surgery Expert Witness was allowed to testify despite his opinion was based entirely on clinical experience and not from other studies.

Discussion: In Cross v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., U.S. District court, Middle District of Florida, 2011 (Case 8:06-cv-429-t-23AEP) the plaintiffs in this filed a motion to exclude all expert witness and testimony that combination hormone therapy does not cause breast cancer.

Under the Federal Rule of Evidence, 702, expert witness testimony is admissible if the expert is qualified to testify about the issues she or he is called upon to opine, the methodology the expert uses to reach her or his conclusions is sufficiently reliable as mandated by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and the testimony is helpful to the trier of fact to understand the evidence through specialized, scientific, or technical expertise. Whichever side would like that testimony must demonstrate that the witness is qualified, that his or her opinions are based on scientific and sound methods, and such testimony will assist the judge or jury. It is not necessary to prove that the opinion is correct, only that the evidence is reliable.  The judge must made the determination as to whether or not the expert witness testimony is reliable.