Expert Witness BlogA lower court ruling excluded two neurologists as experts who were called on to testify on ALS being caused by a traumatic event. The court confirmed one exclusion, but overturned the other.
Articles Posted in Expert Witness Testimony
Expert Witness Testimony in Child Custody Case Disallowed
Expert witness was called to testify on her counseling sessions with the child. Her testimony did not qualify to meet standards under Rule 702.
Testimony of Radiologist in Medical Malpractice Case Allowed
Plaintiff’s expert witness testified on the standard of care in the performance of a cervico-cerebral angiogram. After a challenge, the testimony was said to establish an element of causation. Continue reading
Second Circuit Upholds Challenge to Testimony of Numismatic Expert Witness
Defendants convicted of mail and wire fraud and money laundering involving a coin sales scheme appealed a decision by lower court. The appeal was denied.
Georgia Supreme Court Rules on Qualification of Expert Witnesses in Medical Malpractice Case
The court overturned the Georgia Court of Appeals and decided that an expert testifying on the standard of care in a medical malpractice case was allowed under Georgia Rule of Evidence 702(c)(2)(A) and (B).
Industrial Medicine Expert’s Testimony Allowed In Asbestos Case
Plaintiff’s expert witness testified in this case involving asbestos exposure. The motion to exclude his testimony was denied.
Continue reading
Expert Testimony Related to Human Factors Partially Allowed
An expert testified on many aspects of a case involving a pedestrian struck by tractor-trailer. His opinions related to human factors were partially allowed.
Continue reading
Nursing Expert Witness’s Testimony Limited
Nursing expert was qualified to testify on risk management procedures and quality control in hospitals, but not qualified to testify on issues regarding nephrology or dialysis.
Continue reading
Pharmacology Expert Witness & Cephalon Case
The Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement resolving the antitrust suit charging Cephalon, Inc. with illegally blocking generic competition to its sleep disorder drug Provigil. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. will make a total of $1.2B available to compensate purchasers, including drug wholesalers, pharmacies, and insurers, who overpaid because of Cephalon’s illegal conduct. The FTC’s pharmaceutical expert witness had previously estimated that the amount could be anywhere between $3.5B and $5.6B.
As part of the settlement, Teva also has agreed to a prohibition on the type of anticompetitive patent settlements that Cephalon used to artificially inflate the price of Provigil. Teva is the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world, and this prohibition applies to all of its U.S. operations.
The May 28th FTC.com press release states:
Asbestos Expert Witnesses & ExxonMobil Case
A Northern District of Illinois jury ruled in favor of defendants ExxonMobil and Owens-Illinois and against plaintiff Charles Krik. The retired pipefitter claimed his lung cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos from the 1970 to the 1990s while working in refineries in Illinois and Indiana where asbestos was present. However, the jury ruled that the plaintiff’s asbestos expert witnesses, Dr. Arthur Frank, Dr. Arnold Brody and Frank Parker, needed to offer more specific testimony pertaining to Krik’s potential exposure to asbestos, rather than the effects of asbestos exposure in general. They also found that his cigarette smoking was the “sole proximate cause” of his lung cancer.
In CHARLES KRIK v. CRANE CO.; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; OWENS-ILLINOIS,INC.; and THE MARLEY WYLAIN COMPANY, Case No. 10-cv-7435 Judge John Z. Lee writes:
Krik nevertheless asserts that because the precise exposure to asbestos cannot be calculated, even de minimis exposure satisfies the substantial contributing factor test. The Court disagrees. As the MDL court explained in its opinion denying Crane’s summary judgment motion, under maritime law, “[a] mere ‘minimal exposure’ to a defendant’s product is insufficient to establish causation.