by

Summary: Medical Devices Expert Witness testimony is granted in part and denied in part as the judge ruled that the expert was qualified to offer an opinion on the alleged inadequacy of the Injectafer label.

Facts:  This case (CROCKETT v. LUITPOLD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Pennsylvania – February 23, 2023) involves a drug product liability claim.  The plaintiff, Katherine Crockett, claims that she sustained injuries after she was given Injectafer, an iron-replacement medication.  Crockett says that she developed hypophosphatemia after being given the drug.  The plaintiff hired Medical Devices Expert Witness George Samaras, Ph.D. to provide expert witness testimony to assist in her case.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Human Resources Expert Witness testimony allowed in part because the court determined that the expert’s testimony had a reasonable factual basis.

Facts – This case (Shampine v. U.S. Foods, Inc. – United States District Court – Eastern District of Tennessee – November 21, 2022) involves an employment claim.  The plaintiff, Thomas Shampine, claims that the defendant, U.S. Foods, fired him due to his disability and age.  He alleges that U.S. Foods was aware that he had Parkinson’s Disease and they should had given him advanced notice of a complaint by an another employee and other issues.  In addition, the plaintiff accuses the defendant of disparate treatment of heterosexual, Caucasian male employees.  The defendant hired Human Resources Expert Witness Ginger McRae to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Overview: Marine Engineering Expert Witness testimony not allowed as the court ruled that he did not provide any evidence to support his opinions about the gangway.

Facts: This case (Green v. Cosco Shipping Lines Co – United States District Court – Southern District of Georgia – February 15, 2023) involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiff, Romare J. Green, alleges that he was exiting a vessel operated by the defendants, when the handrail collapsed, which caused him to fall and land on a dock adjacent to the gangway.  Green alleges that he sustained injuries to his right shoulder.  To assist in his case, Green has hired Marine Engineering Expert Witness Richard Galuk to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Employment Expert Witness testimony partially allowed even though the court ruled that the expert was qualified to offer an opinion on reduction in force because of her experience in human resources.

Facts:  This case (Self v. Perspecta Enterprise Solutions, LLC et al – United States District Court – Southern District of California – February 15, 2023) involves a claim of discrimination and wrongful termination.  The plaintiff, Kathleen Self, alleges that she was terminated by the defendant based on her gender and in retaliation for complaining about her manager,.  The defendant claims that the plaintiff was terminated due to a reduction in force at the company.  To help her with her claim, the plaintiff hired Employment Expert Witness Debra Reilly, J.D. to provide expert witness testimony on her behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Public Opinion & Survey Research Expert Witness testimony allowed in Fair Housing Act case even though his expertise is in mixed methods and not specifically social sciences.

Facts:  This case (National Fair Housing Alliance et al v. Bank of America, National Association et al – United States District Court – District of Maryland – February 8th, 2023) involves a claim of violation of the Fair Housing Act.  The plaintiffs allege that Bank of America and Safeguard’s management of certain properties has a statistically significant racial disparity, which is a violation of the Fair Housing Act.  To help with their case, the plaintiffs hired four experts to provide expert witness testimony.  One of those experts is Public Opinion & Survey Research Expert Witness Dr. Michael D. Fetters.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Forensic Accounting Expert Witness testimony is allowed even though the defendant argued that the expert’s discussion of common stock options was a legal conclusion.

Facts:  This case (Lindland v. TuSimple, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Southern District of California – October 24, 2022) involves a breach of contract claim. The plaintiff, John Lindland, alleges that his former employer fired him so as to avoid not paying him his stock options, which would have been due to him.  The plaintiff hired Forensic Accounting Expert Witness Horacio Valeiras to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant, TuSimple, filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Compensation Expert Witness expert witness testimony not allowed even though the plaintiff blamed the defendant for the plaintiff’s failure to supplement the expert’s July 2020 report.

Facts:  This case (Robles v. Eminent Medical Center LLC et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – August 3, 2022) involves an employment discrimination claim.  the plaintiff, April Robles, alleges that her former employer, Eminent Medical Center, fired her because she asked for benefits under the Family Medical Leave Act and due to her alleged disability.  In addition, she claims that the defendants failed to accommodate her alleged disability.  She filed sued, seeking damages for lost compensation and benefits as well as liquidated damages prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees.  In order to prove her case, Robles hired Compensation Expert Witness Dr. Allyn Needham, Ph.D to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude Dr. Needham’s testimony.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the defendant argued that while he has experience with commercial elevators, he does not have experience with residential elevators.

Facts:  This case (Voeltz v. Bridge Charleston Investments E LLC et al – United States District Court – District of South Carolina – April 12th, 2019) involves an injury involving an elevator.  The plaintiff, renter of a condominium in Folly Beach, California, was on the first floor of the property and opened an access door to the elevator.  The plaintiff stepped through the door and fell down the elevator shaft because the elevator was not at the floor.  The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant.  The plaintiff has hired Elevator & Escalator Expert Witness John Koshak to provide testimony.  Defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Psychology Expert Witness allowed to testify in part, even though the defendant argued that an eyewitness identification expert is “generally excluded” because this type of testimony is within the understanding of the jury.

Facts: This case (Gillispie v. City of Mia. Twp – United States District Court – Southern District of Ohio – October 26, 2022) involves a wrongful conviction claim.  The plaintiff, Roger Dean Gillispie, alleges that his wrongful conviction was the result of police misconduct which included witness manipulation, destruction of evidence, and perjury.  In addition, the plaintiff alleges that forensic evidence was also discarded, leading to the extension of his wrongful conviction.  Gillispie hired Psychology Expert Witness Jennifer Dysart to provide expert witness testimony.  One of the defendants, Defendant Matthew Scott Moore, filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Emergency Medicine Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendant argued that the expert’s use of descriptive words to describe the decedent’s pain is subjective in nature.

Facts:  This case (Burrows et al v. 3M Company – United States District Court – Western District of Washington – August 12, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiff, Grace Burrows, alleges that her husband, Walter Burrows, was working at a construction site when he fell off the edge of a “pier cap”.  Mr. Burrows was wearing a 3M Nano-Lok Self-Retracting Lifeline, but it severed after making contact with the pier cap’s concrete edge.  Mr. Burrows died as a result of his injuries.  The plaintiff sued 3M, claiming that it did not warn about the type of edge that severed the Nono-Lok.   The plaintiff hired Emergency Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Anthony Haftel to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading