Articles Posted in Expert Witness Testimony

Summary: Securities Expert Witness was not allowed to testify in a broker-dealer case as the court determined that the expert is not qualified to offer an opinion on broker-dealer’s systems.

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: Professional Engineering Expert Witness testimony excluded in case involving alleged failure to maintain track as the experts discussion of the “fifty-year rain event” was a legal conclusion.

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: Three experts including an Auto Insurance Expert Witness, were partially allowed to testify in part in a bad faith insurance dispute regarding insurance company’s failure to pay claims on time.

Facts: Patsy Ambrose vs State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 20-1011 Section “E” (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana) involves an insurance claims dispute. Plaintiffs Patsy and Ted Ambrose were driving when another driver struck their vehicle. The Plaintiffs allegedly suffered crippling injuries from the incident. Following the incident, Patty and Ted submitted proof of injuries to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The plaintiffs filed suit after alleging that State Farm failed to pay within the suggested time period. The defendants hired Auto Insurance Expert witness Dr. Everett Robert to provide expert witness testimony. The plaintiffs, Patsy and Ted Ambrose, filed a motion to exclude Dr. Everett Robert, and two other expert witnesses’ testimonies in the case.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Discussion: The case centered around the alleged minimal impact of the crash and its relation to the plaintiffs claims for payment. The plaintiff argued that Dr. Everett Robert was not qualified to speak on if the impact of the crash was enough to cause property damage or injuries.. After agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, Dr. Robert would not be allowed to testify regarding the low impact of the collision or injuries because of his lack of expertise in biomechanics and accident reconstruction.

Summary: Biomechanics Expert Witness allowed to testify in part even though the plaintiff argued that the experts testimony should be excluded because a model of a head was different than the head of the plaintiff.

Facts:  This case (Rogers, Steven et al v. K2 Sports USA et al – United States District Court – Western District of Wisconsin – December 28th, 2018) involves an injury the plaintiff suffered while skiing.  The plaintiff allege that the helmet he was wearing, made by the defendant, was designed defectively and that the defect caused the injury.  The plaintiffs have sued for negligence, strict product liability, and breach of warranty.  The defendant denies that the helmet was defective, arguing instead that the helmet was the wrong size and that Scott had not properly fastened it, and that he was injured by direct contact with the ground.  The defendant has hired Biomechanics Expert Witness Irving Scher to provide testimony on their behalf.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Discussion:  Scher used computer models to ascertain the fit and looseness of the helmet that the plaintiff wore.  In addition, Scher conducted a biomechanical engineering analysis so as determine the kinematics of the accident.  The plaintiff argue that both conclusions should be excluded.

Summary: Correctional Healthcare Expert Witness allowed to testify in incarceration litigation as the court ruled that he is qualified to testify based on his education.

Facts:  This case (Rogers v. Hierholzer et al – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – December 28th, 2018) involves a claim that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of the plaintiff during his incarceration at Kerr County Detention Center.  The complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  The defendants have hired Correctional Healthcare Expert Witness David M. Mathis, M.D. to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Hotel & Hospitality Expert Witness deemed allowed to testify as the court opined that the expert opinions have a sufficient basis in the alleged facts of the case even though the expert recreated records provided by the plaintiff’s son.

Facts:  This case (Patel v. Patel et al – United States District Court – Western District of Oklahoma – January 4th, 2019) involves a family dispute over family dealings.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants shorted him when they distributed proceeds from a sale of a hotel business.  The plaintiff seeks to recover the claimed shortfall and other damages under the legal theories of breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraud.  The defendants have counterclaimed for breach of loan contracts, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion, and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff has hired Hotel & Hospitality Expert Witness Bishok Dhungana to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony in this case.

Continue reading

Summary:  Genetics Expert Witness allowed to testify despite the Defendant’s claim that her testimony on informed consent would not assist the trier of fact.

Facts:  This case (Kanuszewski v. Shah – United States District Court – Eastern District of Michigan – February 3rd, 2022) involves a 1983 claim regarding Michigan’s Newborn Screening Program.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment Rights by taking blood from their babies and using the blood without their consent. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff’s have hired Genetics Expert Witness Professor Sonia Suter to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant’s have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading