by

Summary: The court ruled that a Medical Toxicology Expert Witness is able to testify in a case involving a possible erratic patient.

Facts: This case (Ashley v. Bridgeport et al – United States District Court – District of Connecticut – July 22nd, 2020) involves an incident where the plaintiff, Ashley, was transported by ambulance to St. Vincent’s Medical Center via the Bridgeport police station. The two parties disagree as to whether the plaintiff’s behavior was combative and erratic and whether taking him to the hospital for psychiatric services was warranted.

The defendant has hired Medical Toxicology Expert Witness Joel R. Milzoff, Ph.D. to provide testimony about the results of toxicology tests performed on the plaintiff.

Continue reading

by

Summary: The court ruled that the testimony of an Obstetrics & Gynecology (OB/GYN) Expert Witness should not be allowed in a medical malpractice case involving a child with cerebral palsy.

Facts: This case (Gonzalez-Arroyo v. Doctors’ Center Hospital Bayamon, Inc. et al – United States District Court – District of Puerto Rico – August 5, 2020) involves a medical malpractice claim.  The plaintiff claims that the defendant hospital and doctor should be held liable for his son’s cerebral palsy which could have been prevented by stopping the child’s loss of oxygen at birth.  In order to prove his case, the plaintiff hired Obstetrics & Gynecology (OB/GYN) Expert Witness Dr. Barry Schifrin to testify on his behalf.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Endocrinology Expert Witness not allowed to provide testimony as the defendant argued that the expert’s opinion that soy causes hypothyroidism has not been validated or tested.

Facts:  This case (LOVERDI et al v. MEDIFAST, INC. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Pennsylvania – May 15th, 2019) involves a products liability claim.  The plaintiff claims that she developed hypothyroidism from ingesting soy-based dietary products that are manufactured, marketed, and sold by the defendant.  In order to prove her claim, the plaintiff has hired Jonathan Williams, M.D., M.MSc (Endocrinology Expert Witness) to provide testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Electrical Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify even though the defendant argued that his testimony was speculation because he did not perform tests on the aquarium motor, which he alleges caused the fire.

Facts:  This case (Scicchitano Smith et al v. SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Pennsylvania – August 10, 2022) involves a negligence claim.  The plaintiffs, Jeanette Scicchitano Smith and Alexander Smith, sued Spectrum Brands, alleging that an aquarium kit, purchased from the defendant, was defective and caused a fire in their home.  To assist in their case, the Smiths hired Electrical Engineering Expert Witness Christoph Flaherty to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness allowed to testify in automobile collision lawsuit even though the plaintiff argued that the expert shouldn’t be allowed to testify because he is not a surgeon.

Facts:  This case (KA WAI JIMMY LO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – United States District Court – Western District of Washington – April 5th, 2022) involves an accident involving the plaintiff and a United States Postal Service employee.  After exhausting his administrative claims, the plaintiff filed suit in this court.  In 0rder to prove his case, the defendant hired Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Expert Witness Dr. Edward Dagher to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude Dr. Dagher from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary:  Bus & Truck Safety/Accident Expert Witness testimony is allowed because the court determined that the expert is qualified to offer an opinion on whether the FMCSR applies to the driver of the truck.

Facts:  This case (Brown v. M and N Eaves et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – December 19, 2022) involves a car accident with a commercial vehicle.  The plaintiff, Lisa Brown, alleges that the defendant should be liable for negligent entrustment, and negligent supervision, retention, and training.  The plaintiff hired Bus & Truck Safety/Accident Expert Witness Roger Allen to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness testimony allowed because the court concluded that his use of simulations was reliable and helpful to the jury.

Facts:  This case (Abbott et al v. Mega Trucking, LLC et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Alabama – March 24, 2023) involves a personal liability claim resulting from a crash between two tractor-trailers.  The plaintiff, Touri Abbott, alleges that Patrice Lumumba Morgan did not yield the right of way and is seeking recovery under numerous bases including negligence and wantonness.  The plaintiff hired three experts to prove her case, including Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness William F. Messerschmidt.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of these experts, including Mr Messerschmidt.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Education & Schools Expert Witness testimony is granted in part and denied in part despite the fact that the plaintiff argued that her expert opinion on Title IX is not a proper subject of expert testimony.

Facts: This case (Pogorzelska v. VanderCook College of Music – United States District Court – Northern District of Illinois – June 5th, 2023) involves a Title IX claim against a college. The plaintiff, Erika Pogorzelska, alleges she was sexually assaulted at an off-campus party when she was attending school at the defendant college. The plaintiff claims that the defendant did not address her allegations of sexual assault and harassment, and then retaliated against her, which is in violation of Title IX of federal education law. The defendant hired Education & Schools Expert Witness Sandra Schuster to provide an expert opinion. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to exclude Schuster’s expert witness testimony.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Software Engineering Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the United States alleged that they provided more expert witness information in discovery.

Facts: This case (United States of America v. Minkkinen et al – United States District Court – Southern District of West Virginia – June 26, 2023) involves a federal criminal indictment related to the theft of trader secrets by former employees of Deloitte. The United States Government alleges that the defendants copied and downloaded numerous pieces of proprietary information and utilized that information during their employment at a competitor.   To support its case, the government hired Software Engineering Expert Witness Walter Overby to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude Mr. Overby from testifying.

Continue reading

by

Summary: Jails & Prisons Expert Witness testimony allowed as the plaintiff did not cite to caselaw regarding his argument that the expert works for the defendant and his opinion should be excluded.

Facts:  This case (Romero v. CORE CIVIC, INC – United States District Court – District of New Mexico – September 28, 2023) involves a breach of duty and constitutional rights against a prisoner in a private detention center.  The plaintiff, Ruben Romero, claims that the defendants placed him a unit with violent men, who beat him and left him unconscious.  The plaintiff also alleges that nobody came to his aid for half an hour. The defendant hired Jails & Prisons Expert Witness Charles Keeton to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Mr. Keeton’s testimony.

Continue reading