by

Summary: Insurance Expert Witness is allowed to testify even though the plaintiffs argued that he is unqualified because he does not have any experience in providing expert opinions on attorneys’ fees in trademark litigation.

Facts:  This case (America Can! et al v. Arch Insurance Company et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – April 9th, 2022) involves an insurance claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by the plaintiff when it defended a trademark infringement case.  In December 2014, the plaintiff was sued by Kars 4 Kids in federal court alleging trademark infringement.  While the plaintiff were victorious in the trial (with the judge awarding monetary damages and injunctive relief), they were denied requests for attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages. America Can! filed a claim with Arch Insurance Company, but the defendant refused to fully reimburse them for fees and expenses.  America Can! subsequently filed suit against Arch Insurance Company.  The defendant hired Insurance Expert Witness Christopher Martin to provide expert testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Martin from testifying.

Continue reading

by

6Summary:  Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness testimony is allowed in part, even though the plaintiff argued that the expert was not qualified as he has not done billing in certain practices for over 25 years.

Facts:  This case (Ramos v. The Home Depot Inc – United States District Court  – Northern District of Texas – March 1st, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  The plaintiff, an employee at The Home Depot, claims that she was injured while she was walking to back of the gardening department.  Ramos states that she slipped on an unidentified substance on the floor and sustained severe injuries to her entire body.  In order to prove their case, The Home Depot has hired Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness Dr. Benzel MacMaster to provide expert testimony.  Ramos has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Radiology Expert Witness testimony is allowed despite the defendant’s claims that the expert witnesses causation theory that the accident caused a subarachnoid hemorrhage is not supported by empirical evidence.

Facts:  This case (Ortiz v. ReliaStar Life Ins. – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – February 17th, 2022) involves a claim against an insurance company for a denial of benefits related to a vehicle accident.  The plaintiff’s husband passed away on April 13th, 2018 after he was rear-ended while they were at a red light.  Ortiz’s husband, William, asked his sons not to tell his wife, Shemily, about the accident as he did not want her to be upset.  The next morning, William was taken to the hospital, where Shemily learned about the accident.  A CT scan revealed that William had a subarachnoid hemorrhage (“SAH”) and a radiologist diagnosed him with “ruptured flow related aneurysm related to [arteriovenous malformation (‘AVM’)]”.  William subsequently passed away from the SAH.  ReliaStar denied Shemily’s insurance claim as the policy excludes loss directly or indirectly caused by a physical illness, namely the AVM.  The plaintiff hired Radiology Expert Witness Sina Meisamy, M.D. to provide expert testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this testimony.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony even though the defendants argued that he did not have the qualifications to provide testimony in accident reconstruction and does not have any formal biomechanical training.

Facts:  This case (Klorczyk et al v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. et al – United States District Court – District of Connecticut – March 29th, 2019) involves a claim of wrongful death.  The plaintiffs (the estate of the decedent) allege that the decedent died because of a defective jack stand that allowed a car to fall on him and crush him.  They have sued the defendants that they allege designed, manufactured, and sold the jack stand.  The defendants deny that the decedent used their jack stand or that their jack stand was defective.  The plaintiff’s hired Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness to provide testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Professional Engineering Expert Witness testimony excluded in case involving alleged failure to maintain track as the experts discussion of the “fifty-year rain event” was a legal conclusion.

Facts:  This case (Gordon et al v. New England Central Railroad, Inc. – United States District Court – District of Vermont – August 28th, 2019) involves an action against a railroad.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendant failed to properly maintain track facilities.  The plaintiffs claim that a railroad embankment adjacent to the plaintiffs’ property collapsed during a rain event and that the defendant should be held liable.  The plaintiffs have hired Professional Engineering Expert Witness Harvey H. Stone, P.E. to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Three experts including an Auto Insurance Expert Witness, were partially allowed to testify in part in a bad faith insurance dispute regarding insurance company’s failure to pay claims on time.

Facts: Patsy Ambrose vs State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 20-1011 Section “E” (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana) involves an insurance claims dispute. Plaintiffs Patsy and Ted Ambrose were driving when another driver struck their vehicle. The Plaintiffs allegedly suffered crippling injuries from the incident. Following the incident, Patty and Ted submitted proof of injuries to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The plaintiffs filed suit after alleging that State Farm failed to pay within the suggested time period. The defendants hired Auto Insurance Expert witness Dr. Everett Robert to provide expert witness testimony. The plaintiffs, Patsy and Ted Ambrose, filed a motion to exclude Dr. Everett Robert, and two other expert witnesses’ testimonies in the case.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Discussion: The case centered around the alleged minimal impact of the crash and its relation to the plaintiffs claims for payment. The plaintiff argued that Dr. Everett Robert was not qualified to speak on if the impact of the crash was enough to cause property damage or injuries.. After agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, Dr. Robert would not be allowed to testify regarding the low impact of the collision or injuries because of his lack of expertise in biomechanics and accident reconstruction.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Biomechanics Expert Witness allowed to testify in part even though the plaintiff argued that the experts testimony should be excluded because a model of a head was different than the head of the plaintiff.

Facts:  This case (Rogers, Steven et al v. K2 Sports USA et al – United States District Court – Western District of Wisconsin – December 28th, 2018) involves an injury the plaintiff suffered while skiing.  The plaintiff allege that the helmet he was wearing, made by the defendant, was designed defectively and that the defect caused the injury.  The plaintiffs have sued for negligence, strict product liability, and breach of warranty.  The defendant denies that the helmet was defective, arguing instead that the helmet was the wrong size and that Scott had not properly fastened it, and that he was injured by direct contact with the ground.  The defendant has hired Biomechanics Expert Witness Irving Scher to provide testimony on their behalf.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Discussion:  Scher used computer models to ascertain the fit and looseness of the helmet that the plaintiff wore.  In addition, Scher conducted a biomechanical engineering analysis so as determine the kinematics of the accident.  The plaintiff argue that both conclusions should be excluded.

Continue reading