by

In How Attorneys Can Best Utilize Their Medical Expert Witness: A Medical Expert’s Perspective, Dr. Vernon M. Neppe MD, PhD, FRSSAf, FAPA, writes that expert witness testimony depends on finding an appropriate match for your case. This excerpt deals with balanced opinions.

The medical expert’s perception of the strengths and weaknesses of a case must be balanced and not rejected because his / her opinion disagrees with that of the retaining attorney’s. The expert’s opinions may involve multiple different areas of the case. For example, the expert may describe significant brain damage and this may not be something the defense attorney may want to hear; on the other hand, he may describe the profound limitations of ascribing causality to the injury that is being alleged. Alternatively, his / her perception of brain damage may actually be less than that of an opposition expert so (s)he may still be so declared!

More to follow on assisting civil litigation attorneys with medical experts from Dr. Neppe, Director, Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute, Seattle, WA, www.brainvoyage.com.

by

Expert witness James P. Graham testified for the defense in Maria Parra Helenius’ lawsuit against the Dodgers and her assailant. Helenius says she was left legally blind from a punch in the right eye by Denis Ordaz and that Ordaz should have been ejected earlier by the Dodgers security team. The security expert witness supervised various bicentennial events in 1776 and opined that “Miss Helenius violated the No. 1 personal safety rule: A person should always flee from an aggressive person and not confront them unless trapped.” KNBC.com also reports:

When Helenius complained to two uniformed Los Angeles police officers supplementing the Dodger security team that day about Ordaz’s unruly behavior, they did the right thing by relocating Ordaz’s group instead of detaining or ejecting her, Graham said.

“It is my opinion that the L.A. Dodgers took reasonable, professional, thorough and effective security precautions,” Graham said. “They had no right to detain (Ordaz) because she had not committed a crime.”

by

Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court will hear an appeal of a massive class-action lawsuit that alleges Wal-Mart Stores Inc. deprived hourly employees of their earned wages and rest and meal breaks. Wal-Mart employees’ attorney, Robert Bonsignore, has 35 cases pending against Wal-Mart in other states. Wal-Mart employees have already won a $167 million judgment in California and a $151 million judgment in Pennsylvania. The class action expert witness for the employees says that Wal-Mart employees were deprived of compensation for over 10 million missed rest breaks and over 21,000 incidents of one-minute clock-outs. Donna Goodison of
Boston Herald.com also writes:

But a Wal-Mart spokesperson said a “great majority” of courts have ruled that wage-and-hour cases aren’t suited for class-action status because “every individual’s circumstances are unique. It is our policy to pay every associate for every hour worked, and any manager who violates that policy is subject to discipline, up to and including termination,” the spokesperson said. “The company has very clear policies on meal and rest breaks.”

by

Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court will hear an appeal of a massive class-action lawsuit that alleges Wal-Mart Stores Inc. deprived hourly employees of their earned wages and rest and meal breaks. Wal-Mart employees’ attorney, Robert Bonsignore, has 35 cases pending against Wal-Mart in other states. Wal-Mart employees have already won a $167 million judgment in California and a $151 million judgment in Pennsylvania. Donna Goodison of

Boston Herald.com also writes:

Using Wal-Mart’s paper and electronic payroll records, Bonsignore’s class action expert witness found that the Wal-Mart employees allegedly were deprived of wages for 10.1 million missed rest breaks from 1995 to 2005. The expert witness also found 21,383 alleged incidents of one-minute clock-outs where employees went uncompensated and that Wal-Mart allegedly realized $423,010 in free labor from employees whose work was not recorded by the system.

Continue reading

by

South Carolina, along with other states, is tightening regulations that must be met in order for a computer forensics expert witness to testify in court. A South Carolina bill would only allow computer forensic expert witnesses to testify in court if they are employed by businesses that primarily engage in legal work or divorce cases. This would result in the experts needing a PI license if they wish to testify in court. Joel Hruska of Ars Technica.com also writes:

As Baseline Magazine reports, there’s a significant amount of controversy over whether such legislation will improve the quality of digital forensic testimony or damage it. The South Carolina law is meant to ensure that the expert testimony offered by computer forensic investigators actually is expert testimony. Ensuring that such testimony meets a certain standard of quality is in both the state’s and the accused’s best interest.

Critics, however, worry that the new South Carolina legislation will put the title of computer forensic expert in the hands of PIs across the state who are utterly unequipped to handle real computer forensics. Such an outcome would lower the quality of digital forensic analysis available to both the state and to defendants; it could potentially affect trial outcome.

Continue reading

by

In Get the Most From Engineering Experts, Christopher L. Brinkley writes on how thorough preparation of engineering expert witnesses is the key to winning your case. In this excerpt Brinkley discusses the reliability of the expert witness’s work.

You also must prepare engineering experts to address the jurisdiction’s substantive law with respect to the existence of a defect. These standards vary widely from state to state. For example, in West Virginia, a product is defective if it is not reasonably safe for its intended use, giving the general state of the art at the time the product was made. But in Georgia, a defect is evaluted by balancing the risk inherent in the product against its utility, taking into consideration a wide range of factors.

More to follow…Excerpted from Trial Magazine, November 2007

by

In Get the Most From Engineering Experts, Christopher L. Brinkley writes on how thorough preparation of engineering expert witnesses is the key to winning your case. In this excerpt Brinkley discusses the reliability of the expert witness’s work.

One other aspect of the reliability analysis that frequently arises relates to the concept of engineering judgment. Engineers routinely draw conclusions from their understanding to general principles of engineering and prior experience in similar circumstances. For example, extrapolation through engineering judgment is employed by manufacturers to reduce the inefficiency and economic burdens associated with testing every conceivable permutation of a design. Where the basis for an expert’s application of engineering judgment has been well articulated, it is considered an acceptable methodology.

More to follow…Excerpted from Trial Magazine, November 2007

by

One of the four handwriting expert witnesses used to examine the authenticity of documents relating to President Bush’s service with the Air National Guard has surfaced in the Javier Cortez weapons trial. U.S. attorneys filed a motion in the Eastern District of Texas to compel Cortez to provide prosecutors with “acceptable handwriting samples.” Cortez’s attorney, Don Bailey of Sherman, said there were “known problems” with Linda James, the document examination expert witness who tested the signature on the ATF form that Cortez allegedly forged to buy a weapon used in the Truett Street murders in McKinney. Danny Gallagher of the McKinney Courier Gazette also reports:

Cortez faces four federal charges which include two counts of possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance and one count of making a false statement to a licensed firearms dealer for allegedly forging his brother Raul Cortez’s name on an ATF form.

The Cortez brothers and Eddie Williams were arrested in July 2007 in connection with the March 12, 2004, murders of Rosa Barbosa, Mark Barbosa, Austin York and Matthew Self at Rosa Barbosa’s home on Truett Street.

by

Lisa Greene, 42, of Midland, NC, could face the death penalty for the death of her two children, Daniel Macemore, 10, and Addison Macemore, 8, in a January 2006 mobile home fire. Greene claims that a candle overturned in her child’s room but Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Special Agent Van Tuley, the prosecution’s fire expert witness, testified that burn patterns and tests taken from Lisa Greene’s home disprove her explanation of the fire. Prosecution witnesses told of a mother who didn’t care about her children and wanted out of the responsibility of parenthood. Josh Lanier of IndependentTribune.com also reports that John Lentini, the defense attorneys’ arson expert witness will take the stand Monday.

by

Five years ago Rohm & Haas, a chemical company in Montgomery County, PA, alerted employees about a mysterious series of brain cancers. Now Rohm & Haas says its latest study has turned up no problems. But an epidemiology expert witness from Columbia University has concluded that even 12 brain cancer deaths at the Spring House research center “significantly exceeds the expected number.” The expected number is 3.45 cases per 100,000 people, expert witness Richard Neugebauer wrote in his analysis. Philly.com also reports:

He estimated that brain cancer deaths among Spring House workers were at least three times more than expected, and possibly eight times more, depending on the size of the work force.

“Their own panel is saying ‘We don’t think you got all the deaths; something doesn’t look right,’ ” Freiwald said, referring to the critique by the three outside experts. “Epidemiology is a science where it’s very easy to turn it into a shell game.”

Continue reading