by

Toxicology Expert Witness John P. Bederka, Ph.D. of TOXICULL Associates writes in his article about the need for businesses,  governments,  legal  entities,  and  scientists to effectively evaluate the increasing prevalence of marijuana use.  He poses and analyzes many questions in the article, including the following:

1. Is there any relationships between blood THC v. brain THC?

2.How does the percent THC in the smoked marijuana cigarette relate to blood levels of THC in the user?

Continue reading

by
  1. Martinez-Morales v. Martens – Supreme Court of Alaska – February 19th, 2016 – This case involves an accident in a parking lot where a car struck a pedestrian.  Rhonda Martens was found not negligent by a jury in the lower court.  Martinez-Morales appeals the opinion on numerous issues, one being that the lower court erroneously allowed Marten’s accident reconstruction expert witness, Bob Butcher, to provide testimony.  The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court opinion.
  2. Dial Corp. v. News Corp – United States District Court – Southern District of New York – February 16th, 2016 – In this antitrust litigation involving third-party in-store promotions, the Plaintiffs’ filed a motion In Limine to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ economic expert witness, Dr. Dennis W. Carlton.  The court denied the motion.
  3. Kintzel v. Kleeman – United States District Court – Middle District of Pennsylvania – February 19th, 2016 – This case involves a civil rights complaint against a police officer.  The Plaintiff hired Captain William Williams of the Pennsylvania State Police as a Wireless Technology Expert, specifically the evaluation of the GPS used by the State Police.  The Defendant challenged this testimony on qualification grounds.  The court granted the motion.
Continue reading

by
  1. Hernandez v. City of Findlay – United States District Court – Northern District of Ohio – February 12th, 2016 – In this case of alleged excessive force by a policeman, the Plaintiff hired Andrew J. Scott, III as a police procedures expert witness.  The defense challenged this testimony on reliability grounds and the court agreed.  The testimony of Andrew J. Scott, III was excluded.
  2. Nagle v. Gusman – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – February 10th and February 12th, 2016 – This case involves a civil rights action against numerous employees at the Orleans Parish Prison.  The Plaintiffs are siblings of a prisoner who committed suicide while on the watch by the prison.  Both parties called expert witnesses to the stand and both were subsequently challenged.  The Defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. James F. Hooper (neurology expert witness) and the Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Ford (psychiatry expert witness).  In two separate opinions, the court denied in part and granted in part the respective motions to exclude.
  3. Hernandez v. Leichliter et al – United States District Court – Southern District of New York – February 18th, 2016 – In this case involving a car accident on the George Washington Bridge, the Plaintiff hired Dr. James Pugh as a biomechanist expert witness to opine on causation.  The Defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony based on the reliability of methodology.  The court granted the motion.
Continue reading

by

Plaintiff sued her doctor after her common bile duct was clipped during surgery to remove her gall bladder.  The Circuit Court excluded the testimony of her expert witness and the appeals court overturned the ruling.  Now, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appeals court and reinstated the opinion of the Circuit Court.

Continue reading

by
  1. Barclay v. State Farm Lloyds – United States District Court – Southern District of Texas – January 14th, 2016 – This lawsuit involves an insurance claim for foundation damage to a house.  Plaintiffs washing machine malfunctioned, causing water to leak into the garage causing the damage.  In order to assist to prove her case, the Plaintiff hired Gerard J. Duhon (structural engineering expert witnesses).  The Defendant filed a motion to exclude his testimony, but the court disagreed, denying the motion.
  2. Alarid v. Biomet, Inc et al – United States District Court – District of Colorado – February 4th, 2016 – In this products liability lawsuit involving a Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder, the defendants have hired Dr. Edward Seade (orthopedic surgery expert witnesses) to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the testimony, but the court denied the motion.
  3. Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al. – United States District Court – Eastern District of California – January 4th, 2016 – This is a class action case which the Plaintiff’s allege numerous employment-related claims against the Defendant.   The Plaintiffs seek to exclude the testimony of the Defendant’s expert witnesses, Robert Crandall (public opinion & survey research expert witness) and Jonathan Walker (economics expert witnesses).   The court denied both motions to exclude.
Continue reading

by
  1. Fick v. Exxon Mobil Corporation – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – February 1st, 2016 – This is a personal injury case involving a shrimp boat hitting a pipe to a well.  The defendant hired Dennis K. Manuel as an oil & gas expert witness to assist in their case and the Plaintiff challenged his testimony on numerous grounds including qualifications and reliability.  The judge agreed with the Plaintiff and granted the motion to exclude the testimony of Mr. Manuel.
  2. Howard v. Offshore Liftboats, LLC et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – February 1st, 2016 – This case involves a maritime personal injury. The Plaintiff hired Jack Madeley as a cranes expert witness.  The Defense filed a motion to exclude his testimony stating that he is not qualified.  The court agreed and granted the motion to exclude Madeley’s testimony.
  3. Alarid v. Biomet, Inc et al – United States District Court – District of Colorado – February 1st, 2016 – In this products liability case, the Plaintiffs allege design and manufacturing defects in a prosthetic device called the Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder.  The defendants have filed a motion to limit the testimony of Dr. David Schneider, an orthopedic surgery expert witnesses, stating that he is not qualified to opine on matters that go beyond the expertise of orthopedic surgery.  The court granted the motion.
Continue reading