Articles Posted in Researching Experts

In Analysis and Testing In Accident Reconstruction, accident reconstruction expert witnesses at Technology Associates explain the nature of engineering analysis:

Persons with no training in engineering are generally unaware of the nature of engineering analysis, and so tend to assume that testing, as a means of determining the causation of accidents, is a dominant tool of the engineer. In the following examples, we shall undertake to explain the nature of engineering analysis, and to show that it is more basic than testing because testing without analysis is meaningless. Further, while analysis is always necessary in accident reconstruction, testing is only sometimes necessary.

Consider, for example, a flight of steps in which the tread of each step (the horizontal surface) is only 6 Inches deep (in the direction from front to back). Since the shoes of most persons are considerably greater than 6 Inches in length, the toes of a descending adult will tend to overhang the tread by a substantial amount, especially since It Is not to be expected that the heel will always be placed as far back as possible, thereby increasing the overhang all the more. The result will be that the footing will not be as secure as If the tread were, say, 10 inches deep. Thus, if a person has fallen while descending the 6-Inch-deep steps, the fall may be ascribed to the inadequate depth with reasonable probability (providing of course that there is no other contributing reason for the fall).

Ladders and scaffolds expert witnesses at Technology Associates write on stepladder instability:

According to Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) accident estimates, tens of thousands of stepladder accidents requiring emergency room treatment occurred annually in the United States. Approximately 85-90% of these accidents involve the user falling from the ladder and 8-9% of these injuries are serious enough to require that the victim be admitted to a hospital. In addition to posing a severe health concern, these accidents have significant loss-of-wages and high medical expense implications.

Having investigated numerous stepladder falls over the years, we have found it very common to learn that ladder accident victims are unaware of the cause of their falls and it is typical for them to respond to questions regarding causation with answers such as: “The ladder just gave way”, or “It was sudden, I don’t know what happened”, or equivalent statements. One possible cause of such accidents is associated with use of the common four legged A-shaped stepladder, which can easily be accidentally positioned such that only three of its legs are contacting the ground. This situation can also go unperceived until it is too late to avoid an accident.

Seat belt and airbag expert witnesses at Technology Associates describe “whiplash”:

What is the syndrome called “whiplash”? Here is a brief description. A stopped car is struck by another vehicle from behind; the struck car and torsos of its passengers are thrown forward. However, the heads of the passengers lag behind for a fraction of a second, causing their necks to be hyper-extended (unduly strained as the torso flies forward while the head stays behind). As their torsos rebound against the seat backs, their heads now move forward, but are snapped back again, by their necks, and overshoot the torso, again causing the neck to be hyper-extended. This effect is most severe if the headrests are too low and set too far back, as they are in many cars. The whole occurrence takes less then a second.

Although the person experiencing this situation does not have overt signs of injury, the possible occurrence of soft tissue damage to the overstretched ligaments of the neck has been well documented. This damage may be permanent, causing chronic pain and limitation in neck movement, the full extent of which may not be apparent until about a day after the accident.

David Tuffin of the firm Tuffin, Ferraby, & Taylor writes In my expert opinion: How to pick an expert witness

Expert witnesses can make or break a case, so it’s vital to pick exactly the right (independent, knowledgeable and impressive) person for the job. With the construction industry seeing a significant rise in litigation and conflict there is going to be an increase in demand for reliable expert witnesses called in by lawyers to either help defend or support their clients’ cases.

The biggest challenge facing those selecting an expert witness is how to ensure that the person they call upon is going to help and not hinder the case. Often the evidence the expert provides can make or break a case and therefore choosing the right person is of utmost importance.

Joseph E. Bonadiman, PhD, PE, writes on Experience versus education in forensic engineering:

The practicing engineer, that professional who keeps a pair of work boots in the back of his sedan and who has hands-on experience with every stage of a project, might at first seem a distant second choice to the gilded aura of the academic expert. This individual would have less experience presenting or discussing complex engineering concepts with anyone except other engineers who already grasp the subject. Technical terms might be difficult for an engineer to convey in a way a layman would understand; on the other hand, it is not impossible to conceive of a practicing engineer as having attained sufficient social qualities that enable him to competently relay complicated information in an understandable way. For example, he may be a principal in an engineering firm where he makes presentations to private and public entities. Regardless of the way he comes about his mixture of qualifications, is that mix enough to make him the best choice for an expert witness?

Excerpted from The Forensic Examiner, Winter, 2007

Joseph E. Bonadiman, PhD, PE, writes on Experience versus education in forensic engineering:

So, what is more important, experience or education, when choosing an expert witness? When considering a bridge failure, for instance, is it more beneficial to know the modulus of elasticity of steel and vector dynamics or why a similar bridge failed 10 years ago under similar conditions? Who is informed? Who would go in the right direction in an investigation? Who would provide the most appropriate testimony for the client?…

A purely academic expert, one whose accomplishments in a discipline are represented by reports in journals or a doctoral dissertation is, on the surface, a good choice for an expert witness. This expert may be a professor at a university supplementing his or her income with expert work. He or she would be highly familiar with state-of-the-art procedures in the field and would be very competent at conveying this information to an audience like a class, jury, or judge. He or she may appear, and rightly so, highly knowledgeable and capable, but is a Professor Jones on campus equivalent to an Indiana Jones in the field?

Joseph E. Bonadiman, PhD, PE, writes on Experience versus education in forensic engineering:

Much like the argument for nature versus nurture in determining the outcome of an individual’s personality, experience versus education in forensic engineering is a subject of contention when it comes to choosing an expert witness. This article defines education as academic education from study and schooling where bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate degrees are earned. Experience is defined as education derived from persistence in an occupation that has resulted in the accumulation of wisdom gained from observation and insight.

So, what is more important, experience or education, when choosing an expert witness? When considering a bridge failure, for instance, is it more beneficial to know the modulus of elasticity of steel and vector dynamics or why a similar bridge failed 10 years ago under similar conditions? Who is informed? Who would go in the right direction in an investigation? Who would provide the most appropriate testimony for the client?

Expert witnesses are used in a wide range of litigation and their opinions are often viewed as critical, yet few attorneys take the time to utilize the proper resources to find the right experts, evaluate their credentials, and/or assess the admissibility of their testimony. For example, one step in researching a forensic engineering expert witness thoroughly is to find articles they have written. Here are some sources:

Over ten million full-text articles covering a wide variety of subjects and dating back to 1998 can be found at BNET’s FindArticles.com. For example, a search for “forensic engineering expert” returned 517 results as of this date. Some expert witness directories such as JurisPro provide free access to articles written by experts. Many trade associations publish online newsletters and some provide either full-text or extracts from articles.

Expert witnesses are used in a wide range of litigation and their opinions are often viewed as critical, yet few attorneys take the time to utilize the proper resources to find the right experts and evaluate their credentials. Researching the product at issue, e.g. bicycles, will facilitate hiring the right expert witness.

Information about companies and products can be found at the ThomasNet® site (formerly known as Thomas Register®), which has gathered company information from registrations of companies in its “industrial buying guides.” This free online directory provides access to over 600,000 industrial companies, indexed by 70,000 product and service categories. After a free registration, one can search for a product, service, brand name or company name. For example, a search for “bicycle pumps” leads to profiles for manufacturers, including each company’s description, its mailing address, phone number, fax number, website address(es), amount of assets, employees and the name of the parent company.

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