Expert Witness Blog

Summary:  Environmental Engineering Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the defendants argued that the expert was not qualified to offer an opinion because he is not a licensed chemical engineer in California.

Facts:  This case (San Francisco Baykeeper v. Sunnyvale et al – United States District Court – Northern District of California – September 12, 2022) involves a claim filed by San Francisco Baykeeper against the cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View.  The plaintiff claims that the defendants have violates provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  The plaintiff alleges that they tested samples of bacterial from numerous storm sewer systems and the data states that the cities’ stormwater discharges and the MS4 outfalls exceed bacteria water standards.  To prove their case, the plaintiff hired Environmental Engineering Expert Witness Kevin Draganchuk to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Draganchuk.

Continue reading

Summary: Roofing Expert Witness allowed to testify even though the defendant argued that the expert did not provide any reasoning which ties the data he relied on to the conclusions he made in his report with respect to roof damage.

Facts: This case (J.A. LANIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. ROBBINS ELECTRA MANAGEMENT, LLC – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – April 26th, 2022) involves claims for a breach of a Public Insurance Adjuster Contract, fraud, fraud by nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel.  The issue involves hail damage to roofs of buildings owned by the defendant, Robbins Electra Management.   The dispute in this case is whether the hail damage occurred on either March 23rd, 2016 or June 5th, 2018.  The plaintiff, Lanier, hired Roofing Expert Witness Gary B. Treider to provide expert testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Discussion: Materials Engineering Expert Witness testimony is  granted in part and denied in part even though the defendant argued that the expert should be excluded because he does not have specialized knowledge of transloaders.

Facts:  This case (COTE v. U.S. SILICA COMPANY et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Pennsylvania – August 23, 2022) involves a products liability action. The plaintiff, Dayton Cole, alleges that he nearly lost his hand while he was operating an industrial machine manufactured and distributed by the defendants.  To assist in his case, Cole hired Materials Engineering Expert Witness Michael Tarkanian, P.E. to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Police Procedures Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the defense argued that the expert has experience in crime scene reconstruction based on his history of being a law enforcement professional.

Facts:  This case (Minifield v. City of Winchester et al – United States District Court – Western District of Virginia – July 15th, 2022) involves a claim of excessive force.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendant caused the death of the plaintiff’s decedent when he was shot in a foot chase.  The cases revolves on the question of how the decedent received a gunshot wound that subsequently killed him.  The defendant, Stephen Sills, hired Police Procedures Expert Witness Gerald Summers to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Occupational Medicine Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the expert argued that there is a lack of data related to the oil spill.

Facts:  This case (Coleman v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – June 28th, 2022) involves a personal injury claim arising out of exposure to toxic chemicals after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  The plaintiff, Steve Coleman, alleges that his exposure to carcinogenic compounds has resulted in numerous conditions, including light sensitivity, chronic eye sensitivity, and blurred vision.  In order to assist with his case, the plaintiff has hired Occupational Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Jerald Cook to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant, BP Exploration & Production has filed a motion to exclude Dr. Cook’s expert witness testimony into evidence.

Continue reading

Summary: Insurance Expert Witness is allowed to testify even though the plaintiffs argued that he is unqualified because he does not have any experience in providing expert opinions on attorneys’ fees in trademark litigation.

Facts:  This case (America Can! et al v. Arch Insurance Company et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – April 9th, 2022) involves an insurance claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by the plaintiff when it defended a trademark infringement case.  In December 2014, the plaintiff was sued by Kars 4 Kids in federal court alleging trademark infringement.  While the plaintiff were victorious in the trial (with the judge awarding monetary damages and injunctive relief), they were denied requests for attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages. America Can! filed a claim with Arch Insurance Company, but the defendant refused to fully reimburse them for fees and expenses.  America Can! subsequently filed suit against Arch Insurance Company.  The defendant hired Insurance Expert Witness Christopher Martin to provide expert testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Martin from testifying.

Continue reading

6Summary:  Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness testimony is allowed in part, even though the plaintiff argued that the expert was not qualified as he has not done billing in certain practices for over 25 years.

Facts:  This case (Ramos v. The Home Depot Inc – United States District Court  – Northern District of Texas – March 1st, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiff, an employee at The Home Depot, claims that she was injured while she was walking to back of the gardening department.  Ramos states that she slipped on an unidentified substance on the floor and sustained severe injuries to her entire body.  In order to prove their case, The Home Depot has hired Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness Dr. Benzel MacMaster to provide expert testimony.  Ramos has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Radiology Expert Witness testimony is allowed despite the defendant’s claims that the expert witnesses causation theory that the accident caused a subarachnoid hemorrhage is not supported by empirical evidence.

Facts:  This case (Ortiz v. ReliaStar Life Ins. – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – February 17th, 2022) involves a claim against an insurance company for a denial of benefits related to a vehicle accident.  The plaintiff’s husband passed away on April 13th, 2018 after he was rear-ended while they were at a red light.  Ortiz’s husband, William, asked his sons not to tell his wife, Shemily, about the accident as he did not want her to be upset.  The next morning, William was taken to the hospital, where Shemily learned about the accident.  A CT scan revealed that William had a subarachnoid hemorrhage (“SAH”) and a radiologist diagnosed him with “ruptured flow related aneurysm related to [arteriovenous malformation (‘AVM’)]”.  William subsequently passed away from the SAH.  ReliaStar denied Shemily’s insurance claim as the policy excludes loss directly or indirectly caused by a physical illness, namely the AVM.  The plaintiff hired Radiology Expert Witness Sina Meisamy, M.D. to provide expert testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony even though the defendants argued that he did not have the qualifications to provide testimony in accident reconstruction and does not have any formal biomechanical training.

Facts:  This case (Klorczyk et al v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. et al – United States District Court – District of Connecticut – March 29th, 2019) involves a claim of wrongful death.  The plaintiffs (the estate of the decedent) allege that the decedent died because of a defective jack stand that allowed a car to fall on him and crush him.  They have sued the defendants that they allege designed, manufactured, and sold the jack stand.  The defendants deny that the decedent used their jack stand or that their jack stand was defective.  The plaintiff’s hired Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness to provide testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Professional Engineering Expert Witness testimony excluded in case involving alleged failure to maintain track as the experts discussion of the “fifty-year rain event” was a legal conclusion.

Facts:  This case (Gordon et al v. New England Central Railroad, Inc. – United States District Court – District of Vermont – August 28th, 2019) involves an action against a railroad.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendant failed to properly maintain track facilities.  The plaintiffs claim that a railroad embankment adjacent to the plaintiffs’ property collapsed during a rain event and that the defendant should be held liable.  The plaintiffs have hired Professional Engineering Expert Witness Harvey H. Stone, P.E. to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading