Plaintiff filed suit over an excavation related to a construction project. One company, DBM hired four experts to testify on their behalf. Motions were filed to exclude these experts. The motions were denied.
Plaintiff sued defendant for allegedly copying their residential home design plans. The defendant hired an architecture expert witness and the plaintiff filed a motion to exclude. The court denied the motion in part and granted the motion in part.
The appellant asked the current court to opine that the circuit court erred when it allowed five physicians to provide expert testimony. The criminal court of appeals affirmed the circuit court convictions.
Plaintiff sued defendants for alleged civil rights violations. The plaintiff hired a police procedures expert witness and the defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert witness testimony. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
A district court excluded the testimony of an oncology and pathology expert witness and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed and the circuit court reversed the district court opinion.
Plaintiff argues that the defendant infringed on their patent for treatment of BPH by marketing their drug Cialis. The plaintiff hired a urology expert witness to assist with their case. The defendant filed a motion to exclude. The court granted a portion of the motion and denied a portion of the motion.
In a recent Lawyers’ Weekly article “David Can Now Challenge Goliath”, the issue of taking on a party who has access to unlimited resources is addressed. JustKapital, a litigation funder that offers finance to plaintiffs on an international basis, argues that the lack of funding often deters plaintiffs from pursuing legitimate claims. “Disbursement Funding” can even the playing field by allowing plaintiffs to defer payment of third party costs until settlement. This can slow upfront payments, for funding of medico-legal reports, or the payment of Radiology Expert Witnesses.
It can often be that a firm is cash-strapped and not able to fund a report, which can result in the case being put on hold. JustKapital argues that disbursement funding allows a plaintiff to fire back against the defense, and maintain the momentum of the case. With disbursement funding, capital constraints can be lifted, and firms can take on more cases and generate more revenue.
In the article, a case was cited where a man was involved in a head on car crash. He was hospitalized for months, and had a lengthy period of treatment, recovery, and rehabilitation. During this time, the plaintiff obtained a suite of Expert Witnesses who created medical and radiology reports to strengthen the case. This lead to a successful monetary outcome, with the insurance company accepting liability and paying damages and other compensation. Without disbursement funding, the plaintiff would not have been able to pursue their claim as the cost of the radiology reports and other third party reports were sizable.
Plaintiff sued defendants after a motor vehicle collision alleging negligent driving and negligent supervision and training of defendant’s employer. Plaintiff hired a mechanical engineering expert witness to assist in the collision reconstruction. Defendant filed a motion to exclude, which was denied.
Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against defendant arguing that they wrongly inflated their stock and concealed the truth about the condition of the company. The plaintiffs hired a finance expert witness and the defendant’s filed a motion to exclude. The court denied the motion.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against defendant detective for a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. The defendant hired a law enforcement expert witness. The plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude this testimony.