Expert Witness Blog

Summary: Mortgages Expert Witness testimony allowed in spite of defendant’s arguments that the expert does not offer Payment Waiver Protection programs in his own business.

Facts:  This case (Schneider et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al – United States District Court – District of Kansas – August 13th, 2019) involves a mortgage dispute.  The plaintiffs refinanced a residential mortgage loan with the defendants.  The plaintiffs have brought this lawsuit for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and failure to refinance.  The plaintiffs have hired A.W. Pickel (Mortgages Expert Witness) to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Combustion Engineering Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendants argued that his opinions were unreliable based on his reliance of conclusions of one problem vehicle.

Facts:  This case (Counts, et al. v. General Motors, LLC – United States District Court – Eastern District of Michigan – June 9th, 2022) involves a claim by consumers who purchased a 2014 or 2015 Chevrolet Cruze diesel from the defendant.  The plaintiffs allege that they overpaid for their vehicles because they were tricked into purchasing a Cruze with “defeat devices” that made its emissions comply with numerous state and federal regulations.  The plaintiffs claim that their Cruze vehicles emit dangerous amounts of oxides of nitrogen, which exceed state and federal emission standards.   The plaintiffs hired Combustion Engineering Expert Witness Juston Smithers to provide expert witness testimony in this case.  General Motors has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Preventive Medicine Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony even though the defendant states that he was not qualified to offer an expert opinions on technical matters of cardiology.

Facts:  This case (Levitt v. Merck & Co., Inc. – U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri – May 28th, 2019) involves a claim against the defendant alleging that she suffered two heart attacks in 2001 as a result of taking the drug Vioxx.  In order to prove her claim, the plaintiff hired Preventive Medicine Expert Witness David Egilman, M.D.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness testimony was allowed even though the plaintiff argued that the doctor did not provide an explanation that splinting was the best course of treatment for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Facts:  This case (Witkin v. Lotersztain – United States District Court – Eastern District of California – June 23, 2022) involves a claim by a prisoner against a medical doctor.  The plaintiff, Michael Aaron Witkin, says that he was injured during a game of flag football and the doctor, J. Lin, did not provide adequate care which violated Witkin’s Eighth Amendment rights.  Witkin states that he fractured a finger on his hand.  The defendant has hired Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness Alexandra Burgar to provide testimony in this case.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Jails & Prisons Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony in part even though the defendants argued that he did not reliably apply his methodology when assessing the use of force at issue in this case.

Facts:  This case (Jackson et al v. Catanzariti et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Georgia – May 14th, 2019) involves the use of force against two prisoners.  The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants alleging that the defendants, correctional officers, violated their constitutional right to be free from excessive force while they were incarcerated.  The plaintiffs have hired Eugene E. Atherton (Jails & Prisons Expert Witness) to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Automobile Mechanical & Body Repair Expert Witness testimony not excluded even though the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s engine had a different engine than the one tested by the expert.

Facts: This case (Loy et al v. BMW of North America, LLC et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Missouri – June 29th, 2022) involves a claim that BMW did not disclose that the plaintiff’s engine was defective and which caused it to burn an excessive amount of oil.  Plaintiff Loy argues that BMW knew about the engine issue, did not disclose it to their customers, and did not repair, as required by warranty.  In order to prove her claims, Loy hired Automobile Mechanical & Body Repair Expert Witness Darren Manzari to provide expert witness testimony on her behalf.  BMW filed a motion to exclude Manzari’s testimony under Daubert.

Continue reading

Summary: Defendant hired a Fire Expert Witness to provide testimony in smoke inhalation case.

Facts:  This case (Dillon v. Maxus Properties Inc et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Arkansas – April 9th 2019) involves the death of Jannell Dillon.  Dillon died from smoke and soot inhalation after she entered her apartment to extinguish a fire.  Her estate have sued the companies that managed and owned the apartment complex, alleging that the defendants beached duties because the smoke detector within her apartment did not sound an alarm during the fire.  The defendant has hired Fire Expert Witness Ryan Baker to provide testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Insurance Adjuster Expert Witness allowed to testify as the defense’s argument that the expert witness was not qualified to opine on damages was denied by the court.

Facts:  This case (Endurance Capital, LLC v. Seneca Ins. Co. – United States District Court – Southern District of Indiana – October 31, 2023) involves a dispute over an insurance policy.  The plaintiff was assigned rights and interests to an insurance policy which was issued by the defendant.  One night, a slew of trespassers damaged the insured property.  The plaintiff subsequently filed a claim, which was denied by the defendant.  The plaintiff filed this declaratory action against the defendants arguing that they should pay for the losses under the policy.  The plaintiff hired Insurance Adjuster Expert Witness Brian Haden to help prove their case.  The defendant then filed a motion to exclude this witness from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Defendants have hired an Environmental Engineering Expert Witness to provide testimony in environmental contamination case.

Facts:  This case (Cooper et al v. Meritor, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Mississippi – February 11th, 2019)  involves damages to homes allegedly caused the operation of an industrial facility.  The plaintiffs, former residents, seek damages for injuries to their homes and property caused by the operation of the facility.  They allege that the facility was used to manufacture chrome plated wheel covers, utilizing numerous chemicals and that these chemicals were illegally placed in the environment with the defendants concealing such disposal.   The defendants have hired Robert L. Powell, Ph.D. (Environmental Engineering Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Plaintiff hired an Oncology Expert Witness to provide testimony related to a toxic tort claim

Facts:  This case (York v. BNSF Railway Company – United States District Court – District of Colorado – February 21st, 2019) involves a toxic tort claim alleging negligence liability under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”).  The plaintiff, who was employed as a conductor/brakeman by the defendant from 1976 to 1991 alleges that he was exposed to various carcinogens on the job, which he attributes to his development of bladder cancer.  The plaintiff has hired Oncology Expert Witness Dr. E. Roy Berger to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading