by

Summary: Professional Engineering Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony in part even though the defendant argued that the expert’s opinions would not assist the trier of fact.

Facts:  This case (Leftridge v. Speedway LLC – United States District Court – Northern District of Indiana – October 10th, 2019) involves a slip and fall claim.  The plaintiff Tayell Leftridge alleges that the defendant Speedway should be liable for injuries that she suffered when she slipped and fell on a wet floor at one of defendant’s stores in Hobart, Indiana.  The plaintiff has hired H. Richard Hicks (Professional Engineering Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

“Expert Witness Testimony in Medical Malpractice Litigation: Minutiae and Methods – In Credence and Credibility” is a comprehensive article that delves into the crucial role of Medical Expert Witnesses. The authors explore the intricate details and methodologies involved in expert testimony, emphasizing the importance of both substance and credibility in determining the outcome of such litigation.

The article highlights the complex nature of medical malpractice cases, where establishing negligence and proving causation often requires specialized knowledge and professional opinions. Expert witnesses, typically medical professionals with relevant expertise, are called upon to provide their insights and opinions on the matter. The authors stress that the selection of the right expert witness is a critical factor that can significantly influence the case’s outcome.

Furthermore, the article discusses the various methods used by expert witnesses to present their testimony effectively. These methods include providing clear and concise explanations, utilizing visual aids and demonstrative evidence, and employing reliable and accepted scientific principles. The authors emphasize the importance of maintaining objectivity and avoiding biased opinions, as these can diminish the expert’s credibility and undermine the weight of their testimony.

Continue reading

by

The article “Determinant Factors of the Expert Witness Quality of Forensic Accountants in Corruption Crime” examines the factors that influence the quality of Forensic Accountant Expert Witness testimony provided by forensic accountants in corruption cases.

The researchers employed survey methods and a causal research approach to gather data from a sample of 33 forensic accountants with experience in trials or the investigative department. The study investigated three key factors: educational level, multidisciplinary training, and experience, hypothesizing that these factors would impact the quality of expert witness testimony.

The findings reveal that educational level and multidisciplinary training did not have a significant effect on the quality of expert witness testimony. This suggests that while formal education and cross-disciplinary training are important for forensic accountants, they may not directly contribute to the improvement of expert testimony skills.

Continue reading

by

A Florida jury awards $5.6 million for a spinal cord injury sustained during an alcohol-fueled pool party at the Retreat in Gainesville. According to the Complaint, the Defendant, Retreat at Gainesville, LLC, hosted a St. Patrick’s Day event and provided free beer at the Retreat on March 17, 2017.

Massey was not asked or identification when he arrived at the pool party, Although he was underage, Retreat employees encouraged him to consume beer from unmanned kegs placed around the pool.

Witnesses testified that underage drinking was common at The Retreat Gainesville pool parties. Despite warnings to management by a community ambassador, nothing was done to control or monitor underage drinking during the pool parties. Testimony revealed employee focus was limited to prohibiting glass in the pool area rather than curtailing underage drinking.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Securities Expert Witness testimony is allowed as the judge determined that “Ponzi schemes” is an allowed topic for expert witness testimony.

Facts:  This case (Hafen v. Howell et al – United States District Court – District of Utah – February 23, 2023) involves a Receiver’s action against the defendants to recover assets obtained from an alleged Ponzi scheme related to rare coins.  In order to support a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff hired Securities Expert Witness Jonathan O’ Hafen to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant’s have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Medical Devices Expert Witness testimony is granted in part and denied in part as the judge ruled that the expert was qualified to offer an opinion on the alleged inadequacy of the Injectafer label.

Facts:  This case (CROCKETT v. LUITPOLD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Pennsylvania – February 23, 2023) involves a drug product liability claim.  The plaintiff, Katherine Crockett, claims that she sustained injuries after she was given Injectafer, an iron-replacement medication.  Crockett says that she developed hypophosphatemia after being given the drug.  The plaintiff hired Medical Devices Expert Witness George Samaras, Ph.D. to provide expert witness testimony to assist in her case.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Human Resources Expert Witness testimony allowed in part because the court determined that the expert’s testimony had a reasonable factual basis.

Facts – This case (Shampine v. U.S. Foods, Inc. – United States District Court – Eastern District of Tennessee – November 21, 2022) involves an employment claim.  The plaintiff, Thomas Shampine, claims that the defendant, U.S. Foods, fired him due to his disability and age.  He alleges that U.S. Foods was aware that he had Parkinson’s Disease and they should had given him advanced notice of a complaint by an another employee and other issues.  In addition, the plaintiff accuses the defendant of disparate treatment of heterosexual, Caucasian male employees.  The defendant hired Human Resources Expert Witness Ginger McRae to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Overview: Marine Engineering Expert Witness testimony not allowed as the court ruled that he did not provide any evidence to support his opinions about the gangway.

Facts: This case (Green v. Cosco Shipping Lines Co – United States District Court – Southern District of Georgia – February 15, 2023) involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiff, Romare J. Green, alleges that he was exiting a vessel operated by the defendants, when the handrail collapsed, which caused him to fall and land on a dock adjacent to the gangway.  Green alleges that he sustained injuries to his right shoulder.  To assist in his case, Green has hired Marine Engineering Expert Witness Richard Galuk to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Employment Expert Witness testimony partially allowed even though the court ruled that the expert was qualified to offer an opinion on reduction in force because of her experience in human resources.

Facts:  This case (Self v. Perspecta Enterprise Solutions, LLC et al – United States District Court – Southern District of California – February 15, 2023) involves a claim of discrimination and wrongful termination.  The plaintiff, Kathleen Self, alleges that she was terminated by the defendant based on her gender and in retaliation for complaining about her manager,.  The defendant claims that the plaintiff was terminated due to a reduction in force at the company.  To help her with her claim, the plaintiff hired Employment Expert Witness Debra Reilly, J.D. to provide expert witness testimony on her behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Public Opinion & Survey Research Expert Witness testimony allowed in Fair Housing Act case even though his expertise is in mixed methods and not specifically social sciences.

Facts:  This case (National Fair Housing Alliance et al v. Bank of America, National Association et al – United States District Court – District of Maryland – February 8th, 2023) involves a claim of violation of the Fair Housing Act.  The plaintiffs allege that Bank of America and Safeguard’s management of certain properties has a statistically significant racial disparity, which is a violation of the Fair Housing Act.  To help with their case, the plaintiffs hired four experts to provide expert witness testimony.  One of those experts is Public Opinion & Survey Research Expert Witness Dr. Michael D. Fetters.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading