by

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

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: Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness not allowed to testify in step stool product liability claim even though the judge ruled that he is qualified to provide testimony.

Facts:  This case (Brosius v. The Home Depot Inc. et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – February 7th, 2022) involves a product liability claim.  Plaintiff Beverly Brosius claims that she suffered injuries while using a HBPRO3-15 step stool branded as a Gorilla Ladders Step Stool.  Brosius says that she fell from the step stool while replacing a “shade sail”, which covers her back patio, dislocating her left knee and fracturing her left tibia plateau. In order to prove her case, Brosius hired Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness John S. Morse, Ph.D., P.E. to provide expert testimony on her behalf.  Defendant Home Depot has filed a motion to exclude Dr. Morse from providing testimony.

Continue reading

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:  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

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: Lithium Ion Battery Fires Expert Witness testimony allowed in part because the defendant argued correctly that a duplicate product was not used for testing.

Facts:  This case (Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Hewlett-Packard Company United States District Court – Western District of Washington – September 5 2023) involves a fire that caused damage to an apartment complex in Everett Washington.  The plaintiff insurance company sued defendant Hewlett-Packard claiming that the fire was caused by an internal failure of a lithium-ion battery in a laptop that was in the apartment.  The plaintiff hired Lithium Ion Battery Fires Expert Witness Michael Eskra to provide testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Banking Expert Witness testimony allowed as the court concluded that, because the expert is experienced, he does not need to identify the source of specific industry standards

Facts:  This case (Noble Bottling, LLC et al v. Hull & Chandler, P.A. et al – United States District Court – Western District of North Carolina – January 4, 2023) involves a claim of a stolen deposit placed in a bank.  The plaintiffs allege that, as part of a lending agreement, they were required to deposit 2.765 million dollars into a restricted Bank of America account as security.  The loan was never made and the deposit was stolen by Reinhart Holdings LLC.  The lawsuit claims that the defendants verified to the plaintiffs the authenticity and security of the restricted bank account.  To assist with their case, the plaintiffs hired Banking Expert Witness Andrew Manley to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Automobile Mechanical & Body Repair Expert Witness testimony is granted in part and denied in part even though the court opined that he was qualified to provide expert witness testimony in an automobile products liability case.

Facts:  This case (Grover et al v. BMW of North America, LLC et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Ohio – January 24th, 2022) involves a products liability claim against BMW.  The plaintiffs state that their vehicles, all equipped with a N63 turbocharged engines, consumed an absorbent amount of engine oil.  BMW claims that the excessive burning of oil was normal.  The plaintiffs hired Automobile Mechanical & Body Repair Expert Witness Darren Manzari to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude Manzari from giving expert testimony.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Railroad Expert Witness testimony not allowed in personal injury case as the defense argued that he was not qualified to offer testimony in this case.

Facts: This case (Wilks v. BNSF Railway Company – United States District Court – Eastern District of Oklahoma – August 27, 2020) involves an injury suffered by the plaintiff while replacing a broken knuckle on a locomotive. The plaintiff hired Railroad Expert Witness David Anthony Rangel to provide testimony on his behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Rangel.

Continue reading