Expert Witness Blog

Summary: Addiction Medicine Expert Witness testimony is allowed because the court ruled that the expert’s testimony will not include a legal opinion

Facts:  This case (United States v. Taylor – United States District Court – Eastern District of Kentucky – December 2., 2022) involves a claim by the United States against eleven defendants, which include eight physicians, alleging that they conspired to violate the Controlled Substances Act in that they issued prescriptions without a legitimate medical purpose as well as a conspiracy to defraud health care benefit programs.  To assist in their case, the United States hired Addiction Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Mark Jorrisch to provide expert testimony.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Environmental Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify even though the defendant argued that he did not follow NCP standards when obtaining field samples of a hazard contaminant.

Facts:  This case (Courtland Co. v. Union Carbide Corp. – United States District Court – Southern District of West Virginia – April 29th, 2022) involves a hazardous materials claim.  The plaintiff, Courtland, alleges that properties owned by the defendant, Union Carbine Corp (UCC), released hazardous contaminants that have spilled onto Courtland’s property.  In support of these claims, Court hired Environmental Engineering Expert Witness Dr. D. Scott Simonton to provide expert witness testimony.  UCC filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Business Valuation Expert Witness testimony allowed in part because the plaintiff’s charge that Dr. Finnerty relied on unknown information should be discussed on cross-examination.

Facts:  This case (Overwell Harvest, Limited v. Widerhorn et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Illinois – December 2, 2022) involves a securities lawsuit.  The plaintiff, Overwell Harvest Limited, filed a lawsuit against the defendants alleging various breaches of fiduciary duties related to the sale of Neurensic.  In order to prove their case, the plaintiff hired Business Valuation Expert Witness Dr. John Finnerty to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Accident Reconstruction & Safety Expert Witness not allowed to testify even though the plaintiff argued that Kroger’s argument that Balian’s opinion was general knowledge should be brought up at cross-examination.

Facts:  This case (Sutton v. Kroger Co. – United States District Court – Eastern District of Tennessee – July 28th, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiff, Robin Sutton, alleges that she fell outside the defendant’s store, slipping on ice and landing on her right side.  Sutton states that, as a result of the fall, she lost consciousness and suffered a closed head injury.  Sutton filed suit against the defendant, claiming that it had a duty to maintain the premises in a safe condition by removing harmful conditions.  She states that Kroger allowed ice to accumulate near the gas pumps, which created a dangerous condition causing her to fall and sustain injuries.  The plaintiff hired  Alex J. Balian to testify on her behalf.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Civil Engineering Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the plaintiff argued that the expert’s testimony involving visibility and ride duration will not assist the trier of fact because it rehashed other testimony.

Facts:  This case (Saulsbery v. Mark Twain Water Zone, LLC et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Missouri – August 3, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiff, Melissa Saulsbery, alleges that she was injured while at the Mark Twain Water Park when she reached the bottom of a water slide after she was struck from behind by another customer.  Saulsbery states that she received injuries to her back, hips, and ribs and that she required hip surgery.  The defendant hired Civil Engineering Expert Witness Philip Rosescu to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Statistics Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the defendant argued that they have not been able to replicate the expert’s analysis.

Facts:  This case (Stewart v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Southern District of California – October 5, 2022) involves two class action claims.  The plaintiffs, Pamela Stewart and Zulekha Abdul allege that the defendant, Quest Diagnostic Clinical Laboratories, impeded its Patient Service Representatives (“PSR”) from getting rest periods.  In addition, the plaintiffs allege that Black PSRs are underpaid and underpromoted compared to white PSRs.  To assist in their case, the plaintiffs hired Statistics Expert Witness David Neumark to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Business Valuation Expert Witness testimony is allowed despite the defendant’s argument that her report is unreliable because she applied the incorrect valuation date and the wrong evaluation standard.

Facts:  This case (Agnelli v. Lennox Mia. Corp – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – May 5th, 2022) involves a dispute over a business.  The plaintiff, Diego Agnelli, divorced his wife Analia Castellanos in late 2019.  According to Agnelli, his former father in law, Juan Castellanos, ousted him from the family business by terminating his employment contract and buying off his minority interest in the company, the Lennox Hotel.  The plaintiff is seeking damages for breach of his employment contract and seeking a judicial dissolution of Lennox.  To assist in her case, Agnelli hired Business Valuation Expert Witness Kathleen Conroy to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Supply Chain Expert Witness not allowed to testify even though the plaintiff’s argued that he has decades of experience in the general field of transportation logistics.

Facts:  In this case (Keystone Transportation Solutions, LLC v. Northwest Hardwoods, Inc et al – United States District Court – Western District of Virginia – April 19th, 2019), the plaintiff alleges that the defendants, one of which was previously the plaintiff’s president and now works for the defendant, interfered with its business interests and improperly gained access to confidential trade secrets underlying a Shipper Savings Model.  The plaintiff has appointed David Steffens (Supply Chain Expert Witness) to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Aviation Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the defense expert admitted that there were flaws in the defendant’s supplier performance management data.

Facts:  This case (Spearman Corporation Marysville Division et al v. The Boeing Company – United States District Court – Western District of Washington – October 11, 2022) involves a breach of contract claim.  The plaintiffs, Spearman Corporation, allege that the defendant (Boeing Company) breached a contract by cancelling $50 million worth of agreements.  The court dismissed all claims except a breach of good faith and fair dealing claim.  To assist with their case, the defendant hired Aviation Expert Witness Stephen Carter to assist in their case.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Employment Expert Witness testimony is granted in part and denied in part even though the plaintiff argued that Crandall’s methodology does not compare to other time and motion studies in similar cases.

Facts: This case (Utne v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc – United States District Court – Northern District of California – May 6th, 2022) involves a purported class action complaint related to unpaid wages.  The plaintiff, John Utne, filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant, Home Depot.  The third amended complaint brings forth five claims against Home Depot: 1) Failure to pay hourly wages, 2) failure to provide adequate written wage statements, 3) failure to pay wages at the termination of employment, 4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition law, and 5) penalties from Home Depot’s violation of numerous state labor codes.  Home Depot has hired Employment Expert Witness Robert Crandall to provide expert testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading