Plaintiff filed suit against defendant related to a motor-vehicle collision. Defendant hired a Psychology Expert Witness to provide testimony. Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court denied the motion to exclude.
Actuary – Actuarial Expert Witness Testimony Allowed
Relators filed suit against the defendants related to an alleged violation of the False Claims Act. Relators hired an Actuary – Actuarial Expert Witness to provide testimony. Defendants filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court denied the motion to exclude.
Life Insurance Expert Witness Testimony Allowed In Part
Plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant related to a denial of a life insurance claim. Plaintiffs hired a Life Insurance Expert Witness to provide testimony. Defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court denied the motion in part and granted it in part.
Structural Engineering Expert Witness Testimony Allowed
Plaintiff filed suit against defendants related to an insurance dispute. Plaintiff hired a Structural Engineering Expert Witness to provide testimony. Defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert testimony. The court granted the motion.
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness Testimony Allowed
Plaintiff filed suit against defendants related to a slip and fall. Plaintiff hired a Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness to provide testimony. Defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court denied the motion.
Design Engineering Expert Witness Testimony Allowed
Plaintiff filed suit against the defendants related to an insurance claim after a hurricane. The plaintiff hired a Design Engineering Expert Witness. The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court denied the motion to exclude.
Dram Shop Litigation from a Toxicology Expert Witness
Summary: Toxicology Expert Witness Mike McCabe of Exigent explains the complexity and consideration required when it comes to Dram Shop litigation.
Serving, drinking, and enjoying alcohol is very much a part of our national culture. In some respects, it’s embedded into Western society, an over-familiarity that feeds into national stereotypes; the French with their love of wine, the British with their love of beer, the Irish and their whiskey, for example. The same cannot be said of any other drug.
With its omnipresence in our society, and the ability to affect our behavior, our choices and our decision-making processes, it is little surprise that alcohol is the cause of thousands of legal cases a year. In the US, one of the more complex legal disputes regarding alcohol is Dram Shop litigation.
Urology Expert Witness Testimony Allowed in Medical Malpractice Case
Summary: The court ruled that a Urology Expert Witness will be able to testify in a medical malpractice case.
Facts: In this case (Robert Teel v. United States of America – United States District Court – Northern District of Oklahoma – January 7th, 2020) involves a medical malpractice claim brought by Mr. Teel, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. Teel was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2016 and was being treated at the Claremore Indian Hospital.
Tell claims that Claremore Indian Hospital delayed and made his cancer worse by not referring him to a urologist and administering testosterone injections. Mr. Teel hired a Urology Expert Witness Dr. Marc Steven Milsten to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf. The defendant claims that Dr. Milsten’s opinions are not reliable and based on speculation.
Colorectal Expert Witness Testimony Ruled Not Cumulative
Summary: The Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri rejected a claim that the testimony of four expert witnesses, including a Colorectal Expert Witness, was cumulative.
Facts: In Shallow v. Followell (2018), Supreme Court of Missouri en banc, No SC96901, the Missouri Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the lower court abused its power by allowing four Expert Witnesses to regarding a medical negligence claim.
The defendant performed surgery on the plaintiff to treat an abdominal hernia. After the plaintiff was released, she experienced in her abdomen. She was readmitted to the hospital, and the released. After more pain, she went back to the hospital, and again was discharged. When the plaintiff’s condition became worse, again returned to the hospital. At that time, the doctor’s found that she sepsis due to a severe infection in her abdomen. She later died as a result.
Chiropractic Expert Witness Cannot Opine Regarding Non-Chiropractic Care
Summary: The court found that a Chiropractic Expert Witness may not testify regarding non-chiropractic treatment.
Facts: In GUADALUPE MORENO, Appellant V. C’TARA INGRAM, Appellee on Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12-2144, the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant for injuries and damages she sustained as the result of a car crash. The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and judge gave judgment based on the jury’s recommendation. The defendant argued that the Chiropractor Expert Witness should not have been allowed to testify on the necessity of plaintiff’s non-chiropractic medical injuries and treatment. The trial court ruled that the chiropractor was not qualified to give an expert opinion on the necessity of certain medical care the plaintiff received.
The facts of the case are as follows. The two parties were involved in car crash. Plaintiff sued for personal injuries and property damage. Before trial the plaintiff also filed documents regarding medical costs and services as result of the accident. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff regarding the cost, but not necessarily the care that was given.