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

by

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

by

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

by

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