Expert Witness Blog

Overview: Epidemiology Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendants argued that the expert only relied on a small set of documents to form his opinion.

Facts: This case (Maney et al v. Brown et al – United States District Court – District of Oregon – April 19th, 2024) involves a class action against the State of Oregon and other officials at the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC).  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated their Eighth Amendment rights by not protecting them from exposure to COVID.  In addition, the plaintiffs allege negligence and wrongful death against the defendants.  Among others, the plaintiff hired Epidemiology Expert Witness Dr. David Fleming to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Plaintiff Nell Dysart filed suit against defendant Trustmark claiming that it wrongfully foreclosed on and sold her house. Dysart hired a Real Estate Damages Expert Witness to provide testimony on her behalf. Trustmark filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.  The court denied the motion to exclude.

Facts: This case (Dysart v. Trustmark National Bank et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Alabama – August 19, 2020) involves an alleged wrongful disclosure and sale of a house, owned by the plaintiff Nell Dysart. The plaintiff hired Real Estate Damages Expert Witness Scott Long to provide testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Plaintiff filed suit against defendants related to a traffic stop involving a canine.  Plaintiff hired a Dogs Expert Witness to provide testimony.  Defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert’s testimony.  The court denied the motion.

Facts: This case (Jackson et al v. City of Bloomington et al – United States District Court – Central District of Illinois – January 15th. 2019) involves a traffic stop.  The plaintiff was pulled over by the defendant for allegedly failing to make a complete stop at a stop sign.  The police brought a canine unit to the scene to conduct a free-air sniff for drugs.  The plaintiffs allege that the officer did not have a legal justification to search the car and that the city has practices policies and customs of prompting false alerts from dogs and improperly training canines.  The plaintiffs have hired Dogs Expert Witness Lehman Papet to provide testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude the testimony of this expert witness.

Continue reading

Summary: Plaintiff filed suit against defendants after he was involved in a bicycle accident.  Defendant hired a Bicycle Expert Witness to provide testimony.  Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude.  The Court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part.

Facts: This case (Sherwood v. BNSF Railway Company et al – United States District Court – February 25th, 2019) involves a bicycle accident.  The plaintiff alleges that as he cycled over a railroad crossing, his front tire lodged in a narrow gap between two cement panels at the crossing, causing him to be thrown over the handlebars and onto the pavement.  The plaintiff has suffered injuries and has sued for negligence.  The defendant has hired Bicycle Expert Witness Timothy Arnold to provide testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Biomedical Expert Witness testimony allowed as the court opined that the expert did not have to have first-hand knowledge of the accident to provide reliable testimony

Facts: This case (HEATH v. J S HELWIG & SON LLC et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Georgia – March 24th, 2024) involves a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident.  The plaintiff, Tina Heath, alleges that an 18-wheeler with the defendant’s name on it, hit her 2006 Dodge Charger, pushed it into a guard rail, and continued on without stopping.  The plaintiff filed suit against the driver Jeffrey Black  for negligently causing her injuries.  In addition, she alleges that the other defendant, Helwig, is vicariously liable and directly liable because they negligently hired, trained, and entrusted Black with the tractor trailer.   The defendants subsequently hired Biomedical Expert Witness Richard C. Baratta, Ph.D.  to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Discussion: The plaintiff argues that Dr. Baratta’s expert witness testimony should be excluded because he is not qualified and because his testimony is not reliable or helpful to the trier of fact.

Summary: Plaintiff filed suit against defendant related to negligent claims and common law assault and battery.  Plaintiff hired a Hospital Administration Expert Witness to provide testimony.  Defendant filed a motion to exclude, which was denied by the court.

Facts:  This case (Goines v. Lee Memorial Health System et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – February 28th, 2019) involves a civil rights claim.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant are culpable for common law negligence claims and common law assault and battery.  The plaintiff has hired Dr. Fred Hyde (Hospital Administration Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: The court ruled that the testimony of an Obstetrics & Gynecology (OB/GYN) Expert Witness should not be allowed in a medical malpractice case involving a child with cerebral palsy.

Facts: This case (Gonzalez-Arroyo v. Doctors’ Center Hospital Bayamon, Inc. et al – United States District Court – District of Puerto Rico – August 5, 2020) involves a medical malpractice claim.  The plaintiff claims that the defendant hospital and doctor should be held liable for his son’s cerebral palsy which could have been prevented by stopping the child’s loss of oxygen at birth.  In order to prove his case, the plaintiff hired Obstetrics & Gynecology (OB/GYN) Expert Witness Dr. Barry Schifrin to testify on his behalf.

Continue reading

Summary: Endocrinology Expert Witness not allowed to provide testimony as the defendant argued that the expert’s opinion that soy causes hypothyroidism has not been validated or tested.

Facts:  This case (LOVERDI et al v. MEDIFAST, INC. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Pennsylvania – May 15th, 2019) involves a products liability claim.  The plaintiff claims that she developed hypothyroidism from ingesting soy-based dietary products that are manufactured, marketed, and sold by the defendant.  In order to prove her claim, the plaintiff has hired Jonathan Williams, M.D., M.MSc (Endocrinology Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

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