by

A. David Tammelleo, JD, a nationally recognized authority on health care law, writes in A Suit For Medical Malpractice Can Stand Or Fall On The Testimony Of Expert Medical Witness For Either A Plaintiff Or A Defendant that few cases would illustrate this better than the Missouri case in which the plaintiffs’ expert medical witness completely failed to even come close to testifying as to what the applicable standard of care, which the defendant physician and the hospital that employed him were expected to meet.

Not only must both plaintiffs and defendants obtain expert medical witnesses have sterling credentials so that they are eminently qualified to testify as expert medical witnesses, but first and foremost, they must be prepared to state clearly and unequivocally what the applicable standard of care to which a physician accused of medical malpractice is alleged to have breached and that the breach of that standard was, to the appropriate degree of medical certainty, the direct and proximate cause of the alleged victim’s injuries, pain, and suffering for which the plaintiff is bringing suit. In this case, the plaintiffs’ expert witness failed to testify as to what the applicable standard of care was, ensuring the dismissal of the case.

For more, see Medical Law’s Regan Report, June, 2007 by Tammelleo, A. David

by

In Managing the Risky Business of Company E-mail Part1 internet expert witness Scott Greene, CEO of Evidence Solutions, Inc., writes:

As an employer, Human Resources Director, or Risk Management Supervisor, ask yourself this question: “Do our employees think about the legal risk of sending communications over the internet?” If you are like the majority of companies, your answer would be, “It is highly improbable”. It is a very common problem amid the work place, for an employee to believe their electronic communications are transient, temporary and, once deleted, untraceable and therefore, harmless.

The fact is e-mail, faxes and even cellular phones leave a trace. Just one e-mail sent from your employee to the employee of a different company passes through an average of four different computer systems. This creates a trail making e-mail real, traceable, and permanent.

by

A forensic engineering expert witness investigates materials, products, structures or components that fail or do not function as intended which may cause personal injury or damage to property. The consequences of failure are dealt with by the law of product liability. The subject is applied most commonly in civil law cases, although may be of use in criminal law cases. Generally the purpose of a forensic engineering investigation is to locate cause or causes of failure with a view to improve performance or life of a component, or to assist a court in determining the facts of an accident.

Methods used in forensic investigations include reverse engineering, inspection of witness statements, a working knowledge of current standards, as well as examination of the failed component itself.

Excerpted from wikipedia.com.

by

Document examination expert witness Ronald N. Morris is a certified forensic document examiner and in this excerpt from Submitting a Handwriting Case for Examination, he writes on working with copies:

The best evidence for examination purposes is always the original document, but frequently only a photocopy is available. If it is necessary to examine a photocopy, the best copy for examination purposes is one made from the original document and not a copy of a copy.

Photocopies typically do not reveal all the evidence found on the original document or document being copied, i.e., significant quality and features of the writing, indentations, outlines, feather strokes, pen stops, alterations, etc. A photocopy can also contain artifacts not on the original. These artifacts may be dirt, dried white-out, or scratches on the glass. There may also be defects on the machine’s drum, or some other cause.

Continue reading

by

Chemistry expert witness Edward Funk, Ph. D., presented this short course to senior level chemical engineers on patents:

Fourth, the MOI should stand on its own for judgment. Some inventors include a section on the planned experiments to help define the invention. This often leads to the memo receiving a low rating and held for the next patent committee meeting. The MOI should be written when there is sufficient data or the concept is sufficiently complete for an evaluation.

At most companies, a highly rated MOI has been carefully “lobbied” by the inventor.

Continue reading

by

Eli Lilly & Co. won in a ruling to prevent a “critical” pharmacology expert witness from testifying on behalf of plaintiffs in cases involving the company’s Zyprexa drug. Bloomsberg.com reports:

U.S. District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein in Brooklyn, New York, said he will exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Stephen Hamburger. The doctor has offered testimony in some 20 individual Zyprexa cases, seven of which now have pending summary judgment motions before Weinstein, the judge said in a decision issued yesterday.

The Indianapolis-based drugmaker had moved to prevent Hamburger from testifying as an expert witness in the cases. Zyprexa is approved to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The plaintiffs claim Lilly urged doctors to prescribe Zyprexa for uses not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

by

Chemistry expert witness Edward Funk, Ph. D., presented this short course to senior level chemical engineers on patents:

Now, a few things that should not be in the MOI.

First, the potential inventor should not express legal opinions concerning the potential invention. Attorneys are superb at sternly warning that such opinions can come back to haunt the inventor at a deposition or, more traumatically, on the witness stand.

Continue reading

by

Document examination expert witness Ronald N. Morris is a certified forensic document examiner and in this excerpt from Submitting a Handwriting Case for Examination, he answers the question:

What is known, sample, or specimen writing?

Regardless of what it is called, this is the known and verifiable writing of an individual that is to be compared to the questioned writing to try and determine whether the writer of the known wrote the questioned writing. Known writing falls into one of the following categories:

Continue reading

by

Chemistry expert witness Edward Funk, Ph. D., presented this short course to senior level chemical engineers on patents:

Third, the MOI should include a reasonable summary of the prior art. This gives the reviewers a warm feeling that the writer of the memo has some reasonable appreciation concerning the novelty of the invention. In many cases, the inventor knows the prior art quite well. Some arguments why the MOI isn’t obvious in light of the prior art can be very helpful to a patent committee.

Fourth, the memo should have the correct administrative details such as references to lab books and the names of the inventors. Including a colleague who did not contribute to the invention raises a flag indicating possible future problems and undermines the credibility of the MOI as a legal document. An easy reason to lower the priority; someone will need to straighten out the inventors.

by

While there are many cases of child abuse each year, Shaken Baby Syndrome is a hot topic right now and child abuse experts are taking a second look at cases that put people in prison for shaking a baby. Some medical professionals and lawyers say there’s just not enough known about Shaken Baby Syndrome to make convictions.

Audrey Edmunds was accused of shaking seven month old Natalie Beard on October 16, 1995. In 1996, Edmunds was sentenced to 18 years in prison. She always maintained her innocence. The expert witnesses in her case later said the child’s symptoms could be linked to other causes. The Wisconsin District IV Court of Appeals granted Edmunds a new trial in March 2007, after she’d been incarcerated for ten years. Edmunds walked free in February of 2008 after a decade behind bars.
Excerpted from Komu.com.