Articles Posted in Daubert

by

Summary:  Occupational Medicine Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the plaintiffs argued that he did not conduct a validation study pursuant to specific EEOC Guidelines.

Facts:  This case (Livingston et al v. City of Chicago – United States District Court – Northern District of Illinois – April 6th, 2022) involves a discrimination claim.  The plaintiff’s argue that the City of Chicago discriminates against women in the hiring process for the Chicago Fire Department paramedic positions.  The plaintiff’s allege that the City used two physical tests (the Step Test and the Lifting and Moving Sequence Test to terminate women from paramedic training classes.  They say that a higher percentage of women failed both tests.  In order to prove their case. the City hired Occupational Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Paul Davis to provide expert testimony.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss the expert witness testimony of Dr. Davis.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Professional Engineering Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the defendant’s argued that the expert did not have any independent knowledge of when the hail storm occurred.

Facts: This case (Arab v. Erie Insurance Exchange Activities Association, Inc. – United States District Court – Middle District of Tennessee – April 8th, 2022) involves an insurance dispute after a hail storm allegedly caused property damage.  According to the complaint, commercial buildings owned by the plaintiff (Arab) sustained $1,407,786.75 worth of damage as a result of a natural hail storm that occurred on in June 2019.  Arab submitted a claim to the defendant, which was subsequently denied.  The defendant argues that Arab failed to establish that there was a storm during the policy period that caused damages to the plaintiff’s property.  In addition, the defendant claims that there was no functional damage to the roof system.  The plaintiff hired Professional Engineering Expert Witness Steve Prosser to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this witness from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness allowed to testify in automobile collision lawsuit even though the plaintiff argued that the expert shouldn’t be allowed to testify because he is not a surgeon.

Facts:  This case (KA WAI JIMMY LO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – United States District Court – Western District of Washington – April 5th, 2022) involves an accident involving the plaintiff and a United States Postal Service employee.  After exhausting his administrative claims, the plaintiff filed suit in this court.  In 0rder to prove his case, the defendant hired Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness Dr. Edward Dagher to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude Dr. Dagher from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the defendant argued that while he has experience with commercial elevators, he does not have experience with residential elevators.

Facts:  This case (Voeltz v. Bridge Charleston Investments E LLC et al – United States District Court – District of South Carolina – April 12th, 2019) involves an injury involving an elevator.  The plaintiff, renter of a condominium in Folly Beach, California, was on the first floor of the property and opened an access door to the elevator.  The plaintiff stepped through the door and fell down the elevator shaft because the elevator was not at the floor.  The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant.  The plaintiff has hired Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness John Koshak to provide testimony.  Defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Architecture Expert Witness testimony is allowed despite the fact that the defendant argued that his opinion was based on inaccurate data because he did not examine the display boxes at issue in this case.

Facts:  This case (Ellen Boccio v. Costco Wholesale Corporation – United States District Court – Southern District of New York – March 30th, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  Plaintiff Boccio alleges that she was in the Defendant’s store and when she approached the section of Christmas cards on display, several of the boxed which stored the Christmas cards fell on her , which caused her to fall on her back and buttocks to the ground.  As a result, Boccio claims that she broke her lumbar vertebra.  Boccio then filed a lawsuit claiming negligence towards Costco.  In order to prove her case, Boccio hired Architecture Expert Witnesses Frederick G. Bremer to provide expert witness testimony.  Costco filed a motion to preclude Bremer from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness allowed to testify despite the defendant’s assertion that he did not explain how he reached his conclusions about pre-injury earning capacity.

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

by

Summary: Biomechanics Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the defense argued that his biomechanical engineering does not qualify him to testify in this injuries case.

Facts:  This case (Haines v. Get Air Tucson Incorporated et al – United Stated District Court – District of Arizona – July 5th, 2019) involves an accident at a trampoline park owned by the defendant.  The plaintiff alleges that his injuries are a caused by a defective employee handbook created by the defendant.  The plaintiff has hired Richard Hinrichs, Ph.D. (Biomechanics Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

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

by

Summary: Architecture Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the plaintiff argued that an opinion on substantial similarity is not needed as the test is whether the designs are similar to an ordinary observer.

Facts:  This case (Design Basics, LLC v. Forrester Wehrle Homes, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Ohio – May 23rd, 2019) involves a copyright infringement claim.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant infringed their copyrights in a number of architectural plans and used them without permission to build single-family homes in Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan.  The defendant has hired Architecture Expert Witness Richard Kraly to provide testimony in this case.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this testimony.

Continue reading

by

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