by

Summary: Forensic Accounting Expert Witness testimony is allowed even though the defendant argued that the expert’s discussion of common stock options was a legal conclusion.

Facts:  This case (Lindland v. TuSimple, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Southern District of California – October 24, 2022) involves a breach of contract claim. The plaintiff, John Lindland, alleges that his former employer fired him so as to avoid not paying him his stock options, which would have been due to him.  The plaintiff hired Forensic Accounting Expert Witness Horacio Valeiras to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant, TuSimple, filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Compensation Expert Witness expert witness testimony not allowed even though the plaintiff blamed the defendant for the plaintiff’s failure to supplement the expert’s July 2020 report.

Facts:  This case (Robles v. Eminent Medical Center LLC et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – August 3, 2022) involves an employment discrimination claim.  the plaintiff, April Robles, alleges that her former employer, Eminent Medical Center, fired her because she asked for benefits under the Family Medical Leave Act and due to her alleged disability.  In addition, she claims that the defendants failed to accommodate her alleged disability.  She filed sued, seeking damages for lost compensation and benefits as well as liquidated damages prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees.  In order to prove her case, Robles hired Compensation Expert Witness Dr. Allyn Needham, Ph.D to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude Dr. Needham’s testimony.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the defendant argued that while he has experience with commercial elevators, he does not have experience with residential elevators.

Facts:  This case (Voeltz v. Bridge Charleston Investments E LLC et al – United States District Court – District of South Carolina – April 12th, 2019) involves an injury involving an elevator.  The plaintiff, renter of a condominium in Folly Beach, California, was on the first floor of the property and opened an access door to the elevator.  The plaintiff stepped through the door and fell down the elevator shaft because the elevator was not at the floor.  The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant.  The plaintiff has hired Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness John Koshak to provide testimony.  Defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Psychology Expert Witness allowed to testify in part, even though the defendant argued that an eyewitness identification expert is “generally excluded” because this type of testimony is within the understanding of the jury.

Facts: This case (Gillispie v. City of Mia. Twp – United States District Court – Southern District of Ohio – October 26, 2022) involves a wrongful conviction claim.  The plaintiff, Roger Dean Gillispie, alleges that his wrongful conviction was the result of police misconduct which included witness manipulation, destruction of evidence, and perjury.  In addition, the plaintiff alleges that forensic evidence was also discarded, leading to the extension of his wrongful conviction.  Gillispie hired Psychology Expert Witness Jennifer Dysart to provide expert witness testimony.  One of the defendants, Defendant Matthew Scott Moore, filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Emergency Medicine Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendant argued that the expert’s use of descriptive words to describe the decedent’s pain is subjective in nature.

Facts:  This case (Burrows et al v. 3M Company – United States District Court – Western District of Washington – August 12, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiff, Grace Burrows, alleges that her husband, Walter Burrows, was working at a construction site when he fell off the edge of a “pier cap”.  Mr. Burrows was wearing a 3M Nano-Lok Self-Retracting Lifeline, but it severed after making contact with the pier cap’s concrete edge.  Mr. Burrows died as a result of his injuries.  The plaintiff sued 3M, claiming that it did not warn about the type of edge that severed the Nono-Lok.   The plaintiff hired Emergency Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Anthony Haftel to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Occupational Medicine Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the plaintiffs argued that he did not conduct a validation study pursuant to specific EEOC Guidelines.

Facts:  This case (Livingston et al v. City of Chicago – United States District Court – Northern District of Illinois – April 6th, 2022) involves a discrimination claim.  The plaintiff’s argue that the City of Chicago discriminates against women in the hiring process for the Chicago Fire Department paramedic positions.  The plaintiff’s allege that the City used two physical tests (the Step Test and the Lifting and Moving Sequence Test to terminate women from paramedic training classes.  They say that a higher percentage of women failed both tests.  In order to prove their case. the City hired Occupational Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Paul Davis to provide expert testimony.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss the expert witness testimony of Dr. Davis.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Nutrition Expert Witness testimony allowed despite the defendants argument that he contradicted his own previous opinions that “ALL of the SAM-e manufactured by Vitamins Because was deficient.”

Facts:  This case (Malgeri et al v. Vitamins Because LLC et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – April 20th, 2022) involves a claim of mislabeling of a dietary supplement.  The plaintiff, Noah Malgeri, alleges that he purchased S-Adenosyl Methionine (“SAM-e”) dietary supplements from the defendant, Vitamins Because, and that the suppliment contained significantly less amounts of SAM-e ingredient than what was represented on their labels.  Malgeri hired Nutrition Expert Witness Dr. Douglas S. Kalman to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Environmental Toxicology Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the expert stated that in order to prove exposure, he would have to base his opinion on the scientific methods of an environmental toxicology.

Facts:  This case (Pettaway v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – August 16th, 2022) involves the alleged exposure of toxic chemicals related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The plaintiff, John Pettaway, states that he was involved in the cleanup and was exposed to crude oil and dispersants. He alleges that his involvement in the cleanup has resulted in numerous medical issues, including cough, congestion, nasal discharge, and dizziness.  To assist in his case, Pettaway has hired Environmental Toxicology Expert Witness Dr. Jerald Cook to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant, BP, has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

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

by

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