Articles Posted in Expert Witness Testimony

Summary:  Environmental Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify even though the defendant argued that he did not follow NCP standards when obtaining field samples of a hazard contaminant.

Facts:  This case (Courtland Co. v. Union Carbide Corp. – United States District Court – Southern District of West Virginia – April 29th, 2022) involves a hazardous materials claim.  The plaintiff, Courtland, alleges that properties owned by the defendant, Union Carbine Corp (UCC), released hazardous contaminants that have spilled onto Courtland’s property.  In support of these claims, Court hired Environmental Engineering Expert Witness Dr. D. Scott Simonton to provide expert witness testimony.  UCC filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Business Valuation Expert Witness testimony allowed in part because the plaintiff’s charge that Dr. Finnerty relied on unknown information should be discussed on cross-examination.

Facts:  This case (Overwell Harvest, Limited v. Widerhorn et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Illinois – December 2, 2022) involves a securities lawsuit.  The plaintiff, Overwell Harvest Limited, filed a lawsuit against the defendants alleging various breaches of fiduciary duties related to the sale of Neurensic.  In order to prove their case, the plaintiff hired Business Valuation Expert Witness Dr. John Finnerty to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Mortgage Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendant argued that he was not qualified to offer an opinion because he has never worked for a mortgage servicer or servicing regulator.

Facts:  This case (United States ex rel. Mitchell v. CIT Bank, N.A. – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – April 26, 2022) involves a claim under the False Claims Act (FCA).  The Relator, Andrew Mitchell, through the plaintiff, The United States, alleges that the defendant, One West Bank, submitted false claims to the Government in order to obtain payment under three Government loan-modification programs.  Mitchel alleges that One West Bank certified to numerous Government agencies that it was in compliance with specific laws and regulations, despite it knowing that it was not.  One West Bank’s false certifications caused the government to make payments to the bank that it wouldn’t have made.  In order to assist in his case, Mitchell hired Mortgage Expert Witness Nelson Locke, Esq. to provide expert testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Internal Medicine Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the plaintiff argued that the expert did not act within the standard of care when she did not contact an on-call physician.

Facts:  This case (Griffin v. Coffee County et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Georgia – August 19, 2022) involves a wrongful death action involving a prisoner who died while in custody.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the decedent’s (Shannon Rewis) standard of care because they left him in an observation cell when they found out that Mr. Lewis had ingested methamphetamine, rather than providing treatment or sending him somewhere else to receive care.  The defendants have hired Internal Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Robert Hall to provide an expert opinion on this case.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness testimony allowed because the expert’s use of the term “non-severe disability” is founded on a valid methodology.

Facts:  This case (TELMANOSKI et al v. BONEFISH GRILL, LLC et al – United States District Court – District of New Jersey – November 29, 2022)  involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiffs, Robert Telmanoski and Donna Brandz, allege that Telmanoski was delivering food to a Bonefish Grill in New Jersey and slipped on a piece of paper while inside the restaurant and suffered numerous injuries.  In order to prove his case, Telmanoski hired Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness Dr. Joseph T. Crouse to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert witness testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness testimony is allowed because the court ruled that his expert opinion was not speculative because his testimony mirrored that of the state standard in Texas.

Facts:  This case (Connell West Trucking Co., Inc. et al v. Estes Express Lines et al – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – November 22, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  One of the plaintiffs, Gucharan Singh, is seeking damages for future medical expenses for the injuries to his knee.  The plaintiff hired Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness Dr. Robert Montgomery to provide expert testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Human Resources Expert Witness testimony allowed in part because the court determined that the expert’s testimony had a reasonable factual basis.

Facts – This case (Shampine v. U.S. Foods, Inc. – United States District Court – Eastern District of Tennessee – November 21, 2022) involves an employment claim.  The plaintiff, Thomas Shampine, claims that the defendant, U.S. Foods, fired him due to his disability and age.  He alleges that U.S. Foods was aware that he had Parkinson’s Disease and they should had given him advanced notice of a complaint by an another employee and other issues.  In addition, the plaintiff accuses the defendant of disparate treatment of heterosexual, Caucasian male employees.  The defendant hired Human Resources Expert Witness Ginger McRae to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify even though the defendant argued that his expert opinion should be excluded because he did not conduct an accident reconstruction report.

Facts:  This case (Hix-Hernandez v. Ford Motor Co. – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – July 25, 2022) involves a products-liability claim against Ford Motor Company.  The plaintiff, Staci Hix-Hernandez, claims that she was injured when a battery dislodged from an Ford F-150 truck after it collided with a tractor-trailer.  Hix Hernandez says that the battery became airborne and crashed through her windshield and hit her in the face.  She states that she sustained numerous injuries due to the accident including facial fractures, chemical burns to her face, as well as physical and emotional trauma.  Hix-Hernandez filed suit against Ford Motor, claiming that the battery was defectively secured in the compartment of the F-150 and that the design of the battery restraint in the F-150 was flawed.  Hix-Hernandez hired Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness Jahan Rasty, Ph.D to provide expert witness testimony in this case.  Ford has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness allowed to testify as the court ruled that his expert opinion was reliable as he reconstructed the accident based on the truck driver.

Facts:  This case (Irwin Tripp v. Walmart, Inc et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – November 16, 2022) involves a personal injury lawsuit.  The plaintiff, Irwin Tripp, was injured when a terminal tractor hit him and dragged him after unloading goods.  The plaintiff sustained horrible injuries, losing both his legs in the accident.  The defendant hired Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness Donald J. Fournier to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Aerospace Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify in part despite defendants’ argument that he does not have knowledge of the actual regulations that were violated.

Facts: This case (Aircraft Holding Solutions LLC et al v. Learjet Inc et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – July 29, 2022) involves a claim of damages to a Bombardier Challenger 300 during routine maintenance.  The plaintiffs filed this action after the airplane fell from it’s jacks.  The plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to damages for the value of the aircraft and other damages as a result of the defendant’s negligence.  The plaintiffs hired Aerospace Engineering Expert Witness Pat Duggins to provide expert testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading