Articles Posted in Uncategorized

by

Summary:  Environmental Toxicology Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the expert stated that in order to prove exposure, he would have to base his opinion on the scientific methods of an environmental toxicology.

Facts:  This case (Pettaway v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – August 16th, 2022) involves the alleged exposure of toxic chemicals related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The plaintiff, John Pettaway, states that he was involved in the cleanup and was exposed to crude oil and dispersants. He alleges that his involvement in the cleanup has resulted in numerous medical issues, including cough, congestion, nasal discharge, and dizziness.  To assist in his case, Pettaway has hired Environmental Toxicology Expert Witness Dr. Jerald Cook to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant, BP, has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Statistics Expert Witness testimony is not excluded by the court even though the defendant argued that expert’s preliminary analysis was not reliable.

Facts: This case (Sara Hawes v. Macy’s Stores West, Inc – United States District Court – Southern District of Ohio – January 22nd, 2022) involves a consumer class action complaint whereby the plaintiff argues that Macy’s has misrepresented the thread-counts in a set of sheets, Chief Value Cotton, that they sell.  Hawes claims that Macy’s was aware that consumers know that a higher count thread means softer, more comfortable sheets.  Hawes has hired Statistics Expert Witness Stefan Boedeker to provide testimony.  Macy’s has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Radiology Expert Witness testimony is allowed in part and excluded in part as the court determined that the expert was qualified to offer an opinion on the plaintiff’s back pain, but not his anxiety and depression.

Facts:  This case (Leus v. C.R. Bard, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Western District of Missouri – September 22, 2021) involves a claim of medical malpractice against a doctor who implanted a filter into the plaintiff who was going to have bariatric surgery.  The plaintiff claims that the filter punctured his inferior vena cava and caused back pain and internal bleeding.  The defendant hired Radiology Expert Witness Christopher Morris to provide testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Morris’s testimony from being admitted to the court.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Defendant is guilty of murder despite Psychiatry Expert Witness diagnosis of his schizophrenic condition.

Facts: MATTHEWVAISE V. STATE OF MARYLAND, Case No. 2205, Sept. 2018 involved the death of Stephen Vaise.

The victim was found shot dead in his home in Maryland in January 2015. Stephen’s son Matthew Vaise was charged with 1st Degree murder, and for use of a gun in a crime of violence.

Continue reading

by

The new strain of coronavirus was officially named “COVID-19” on the February 11, 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO).  Since that time, the transmission of the virus has altered virtually all aspects of public life.  This disruption may eventually lead to usual court, dispute resolution, and arbitration processes to become less practical because of public health measures put in place to contain the spread of the virus.

Because of the coronavirus, expert witnesses may be forced to testify by video conferencing.  This could likely be done at the deposition stage.  Although video taping of expert depositions is commonplace, it may become the rule rather than the exception to limit social interaction.  If the expert deposition will be videotaped, counsel should remind their expert about their facial expressions, and their tone.  It should also be noted that in this time of video posting, counsel should consider obtaining a protective order to prevent the video deposition from being posted on the Internet. See Paisley Park Enters. v. Uptown Prods., 54 F. Supp. 2d 347 (S.D. N.Y. 1999) (where the court ordered strict limits on the dissemination of the video deposition of musician Prince.)

by

Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant related to a personal injury claim.  Plaintiff hired a Human Factors Engineering Expert Witness to provide testimony.  Defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.  The court denied the motion in part and granted it in part.

Continue reading