Articles Posted in Expert Witness Testimony

by

Summary: Radiology Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendant argued that there is no certification for forensic radiology.

Facts:  This case (United States v. Mariscal-Lopez – United States District Court – District of New Mexico – December 21, 2022) involves a claim by the United States Government against the plaintiff related to a two count indictment for conspiracy to commit kidnapping and kidnapping resulting in death.  The plaintiff hired Radiology Expert Witness Dr. Gary Mlady to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

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:  Electrical Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify even though the defendant argued that his testimony was speculation because he did not perform tests on the aquarium motor, which he alleges caused the fire.

Facts:  This case (Scicchitano Smith et al v. SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Pennsylvania – August 10, 2022) involves a negligence claim.  The plaintiffs, Jeanette Scicchitano Smith and Alexander Smith, sued Spectrum Brands, alleging that an aquarium kit, purchased from the defendant, was defective and caused a fire in their home.  To assist in their case, the Smiths hired Electrical Engineering Expert Witness Christoph Flaherty to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert 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:  Bus & Truck Safety/Accident Expert Witness testimony is allowed because the court determined that the expert is qualified to offer an opinion on whether the FMCSR applies to the driver of the truck.

Facts:  This case (Brown v. M and N Eaves et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – December 19, 2022) involves a car accident with a commercial vehicle.  The plaintiff, Lisa Brown, alleges that the defendant should be liable for negligent entrustment, and negligent supervision, retention, and training.  The plaintiff hired Bus & Truck Safety/Accident Expert Witness Roger Allen to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Emergency Medicine Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendant argued that the expert’s use of descriptive words to describe the decedent’s pain is subjective in nature.

Facts:  This case (Burrows et al v. 3M Company – United States District Court – Western District of Washington – August 12, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiff, Grace Burrows, alleges that her husband, Walter Burrows, was working at a construction site when he fell off the edge of a “pier cap”.  Mr. Burrows was wearing a 3M Nano-Lok Self-Retracting Lifeline, but it severed after making contact with the pier cap’s concrete edge.  Mr. Burrows died as a result of his injuries.  The plaintiff sued 3M, claiming that it did not warn about the type of edge that severed the Nono-Lok.   The plaintiff hired Emergency Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Anthony Haftel to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

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: Nutrition Expert Witness testimony allowed despite the defendants argument that he contradicted his own previous opinions that “ALL of the SAM-e manufactured by Vitamins Because was deficient.”

Facts:  This case (Malgeri et al v. Vitamins Because LLC et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – April 20th, 2022) involves a claim of mislabeling of a dietary supplement.  The plaintiff, Noah Malgeri, alleges that he purchased S-Adenosyl Methionine (“SAM-e”) dietary supplements from the defendant, Vitamins Because, and that the suppliment contained significantly less amounts of SAM-e ingredient than what was represented on their labels.  Malgeri hired Nutrition Expert Witness Dr. Douglas S. Kalman to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Addiction Medicine Expert Witness testimony is allowed because the court ruled that the expert’s testimony will not include a legal opinion

Facts:  This case (United States v. Taylor – United States District Court – Eastern District of Kentucky – December 2., 2022) involves a claim by the United States against eleven defendants, which include eight physicians, alleging that they conspired to violate the Controlled Substances Act in that they issued prescriptions without a legitimate medical purpose as well as a conspiracy to defraud health care benefit programs.  To assist in their case, the United States hired Addiction Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Mark Jorrisch to provide expert testimony.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

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