by

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

by

Summary: Fingerprints Expert Witness testimony is allowed as the court ruled that the expert reliably applied the fingerprinting methods.

Facts:  This case (United States of America v. Lester Aceituno – United States District Court – District of New Hampshire – October 25, 2023) involves an indictment alleging a conspiracy to deposit and withdraw funds from checks and money orders that were fraudulently obtained.  The government claims that a fingerprint found on a post office box application which was written in the name of one of the victims in this case.  In order to prove their case, the government hired Fingerprints Expert Witness Patricia Cornell to provide expert witness testimony.  Cornell analyzed the latent fingerprint and identified it as a match to the defendant.  Mr. Aceituno filed a motion to exclude this expert’s testimony.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Pediatrics Expert Witness testimony is not allowed as the expert did not cite any authority that HIW can cause ASD.

Facts:  This case (Scottoline v. Women First, LLC – Delaware Superior Court – March 1, 2023) involves a medical negligence claim.  The plaintiffs assert that their child was deprived of oxygen during labor and delivery and, as a result, has an ongoing medical condition that falls within the autism spectrum.  To assist in their case, the plaintiffs hired Pediatrics Expert Witness Daniel Adler, M.D. to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Correctional Healthcare Expert Witness allowed to testify in incarceration litigation as the court ruled that he is qualified to testify based on his education.

Facts:  This case (Rogers v. Hierholzer et al – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – December 28th, 2018) involves a claim that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of the plaintiff during his incarceration at Kerr County Detention Center.  The complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  The defendants have hired Correctional Healthcare Expert Witness David M. Mathis, M.D. to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Professional Engineering Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the defendant’s argued that the expert did not have any independent knowledge of when the hail storm occurred.

Facts: This case (Arab v. Erie Insurance Exchange Activities Association, Inc. – United States District Court – Middle District of Tennessee – April 8th, 2022) involves an insurance dispute after a hail storm allegedly caused property damage.  According to the complaint, commercial buildings owned by the plaintiff (Arab) sustained $1,407,786.75 worth of damage as a result of a natural hail storm that occurred on in June 2019.  Arab submitted a claim to the defendant, which was subsequently denied.  The defendant argues that Arab failed to establish that there was a storm during the policy period that caused damages to the plaintiff’s property.  In addition, the defendant claims that there was no functional damage to the roof system.  The plaintiff hired Professional Engineering Expert Witness Steve Prosser to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this witness from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness not allowed to testify in step stool product liability claim even though the judge ruled that he is qualified to provide testimony.

Facts:  This case (Brosius v. The Home Depot Inc. et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – February 7th, 2022) involves a product liability claim.  Plaintiff Beverly Brosius claims that she suffered injuries while using a HBPRO3-15 step stool branded as a Gorilla Ladders Step Stool.  Brosius says that she fell from the step stool while replacing a “shade sail”, which covers her back patio, dislocating her left knee and fracturing her left tibia plateau. In order to prove her case, Brosius hired Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness John S. Morse, Ph.D., P.E. to provide expert testimony on her behalf.  Defendant Home Depot has filed a motion to exclude Dr. Morse from providing testimony.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Radiology Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendant argued that there is no certification for forensic radiology.

Facts:  This case (United States v. Mariscal-Lopez – United States District Court – District of New Mexico – December 21, 2022) involves a claim by the United States Government against the plaintiff related to a two count indictment for conspiracy to commit kidnapping and kidnapping resulting in death.  The plaintiff hired Radiology Expert Witness Dr. Gary Mlady to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Genetics Expert Witness allowed to testify despite the Defendant’s claim that her testimony on informed consent would not assist the trier of fact.

Facts:  This case (Kanuszewski v. Shah – United States District Court – Eastern District of Michigan – February 3rd, 2022) involves a 1983 claim regarding Michigan’s Newborn Screening Program.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment Rights by taking blood from their babies and using the blood without their consent. In order to prove their case, the plaintiff’s have hired Genetics Expert Witness Professor Sonia Suter to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant’s have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Statistics Expert Witness testimony is not excluded by the court even though the defendant argued that expert’s preliminary analysis was not reliable.

Facts: This case (Sara Hawes v. Macy’s Stores West, Inc – United States District Court – Southern District of Ohio – January 22nd, 2022) involves a consumer class action complaint whereby the plaintiff argues that Macy’s has misrepresented the thread-counts in a set of sheets, Chief Value Cotton, that they sell.  Hawes claims that Macy’s was aware that consumers know that a higher count thread means softer, more comfortable sheets.  Hawes has hired Statistics Expert Witness Stefan Boedeker to provide testimony.  Macy’s has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Lithium Ion Battery Fires Expert Witness testimony allowed in part because the defendant argued correctly that a duplicate product was not used for testing.

Facts:  This case (Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Hewlett-Packard Company United States District Court – Western District of Washington – September 5 2023) involves a fire that caused damage to an apartment complex in Everett Washington.  The plaintiff insurance company sued defendant Hewlett-Packard claiming that the fire was caused by an internal failure of a lithium-ion battery in a laptop that was in the apartment.  The plaintiff hired Lithium Ion Battery Fires Expert Witness Michael Eskra to provide testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading