by
  1. Barclay v. State Farm Lloyds – United States District Court – Southern District of Texas – January 14th, 2016 – This lawsuit involves an insurance claim for foundation damage to a house.  Plaintiffs washing machine malfunctioned, causing water to leak into the garage causing the damage.  In order to assist to prove her case, the Plaintiff hired Gerard J. Duhon (structural engineering expert witnesses).  The Defendant filed a motion to exclude his testimony, but the court disagreed, denying the motion.
  2. Alarid v. Biomet, Inc et al – United States District Court – District of Colorado – February 4th, 2016 – In this products liability lawsuit involving a Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder, the defendants have hired Dr. Edward Seade (orthopedic surgery expert witnesses) to provide expert witness testimony on his behalf.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the testimony, but the court denied the motion.
  3. Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al. – United States District Court – Eastern District of California – January 4th, 2016 – This is a class action case which the Plaintiff’s allege numerous employment-related claims against the Defendant.   The Plaintiffs seek to exclude the testimony of the Defendant’s expert witnesses, Robert Crandall (public opinion & survey research expert witness) and Jonathan Walker (economics expert witnesses).   The court denied both motions to exclude.
Continue reading

by
  1. Fick v. Exxon Mobil Corporation – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – February 1st, 2016 – This is a personal injury case involving a shrimp boat hitting a pipe to a well.  The defendant hired Dennis K. Manuel as an oil & gas expert witness to assist in their case and the Plaintiff challenged his testimony on numerous grounds including qualifications and reliability.  The judge agreed with the Plaintiff and granted the motion to exclude the testimony of Mr. Manuel.
  2. Howard v. Offshore Liftboats, LLC et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – February 1st, 2016 – This case involves a maritime personal injury. The Plaintiff hired Jack Madeley as a cranes expert witness.  The Defense filed a motion to exclude his testimony stating that he is not qualified.  The court agreed and granted the motion to exclude Madeley’s testimony.
  3. Alarid v. Biomet, Inc et al – United States District Court – District of Colorado – February 1st, 2016 – In this products liability case, the Plaintiffs allege design and manufacturing defects in a prosthetic device called the Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder.  The defendants have filed a motion to limit the testimony of Dr. David Schneider, an orthopedic surgery expert witnesses, stating that he is not qualified to opine on matters that go beyond the expertise of orthopedic surgery.  The court granted the motion.
Continue reading

by
  1. Brooks et al v. Caterpillar, Inc. – United States District Court – Western District of Kentucky – January 20th, 2016 – In this products liability case involving a coal mining accident, the Plaintiffs sued the Defendant claiming that the incident could have been avoided if a handle on a roof bolter machine was located in a different spot.  The Plaintiffs hired Thomas Boutaugh and Jack Spadaro (Mining Expert Witnesses) to provide expert witness testimony on their behalf.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude the testimony of both witnesses citing non-qualification and erred methodologies.  The court opined that the testimony of both experts were allowed.
  2. Douglas Lapham and Hilarie Lapham v. Watts Regulator Company – United States District Court – District of Kansas – January 21st, 2016 – The Plaintiffs bring this products liability action against the Defendants for a defective toilet connector.   Their claims include design defect, manufacturing defect, and warning defect.  In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs hired  Dr. Javier Cruz, a plastics expert witness.  The Defendants have filed a motion to exclude this testimony on the grounds of reliability and qualifications.  The court denied the motion to exclude.
  3. State of Arizona v. Joseph Javier Romero – Arizona Supreme Court – January 20th, 2016 – The appellant in this case appeals his first degree murder conviction.  He states that the trial court erred when it precluded the expert witness testimony of Dr. Ralph Haber (firearms & ballistics expert witness).  Specifically, Romero states that the court should have allowed Dr. Haber’s testimony that firearms experts use subjective methods when drawing conclusions from indentations on shell casings.  An divided appeals court also agreed to with the trial court in not allowing this testimony.  The present court affirmed this ruling.
Continue reading

by
  1. Mendoza v. Lafarge North America, Inc. et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – January 13th, 2015 – In this personal injury case involving a motor vehicle and a cement-mixing truck, the plaintiff (Mendoza) has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of David W. Aiken, Jr, M.D. (orthopedic surgery expert witness).  Dr. Aiken was hired to offer an opinion on Mendoza’s medical condition and whether the accident caused the need for her neck surgery.  Dr. Aiken concluded that the accident did not cause Mendoza’s need for neck surgery.  Mendoza filed a motion stating that Dr. Aiken’s expert testimony was unreliable because he did not examine the plaintiff.  The court disagreed with her, stating that, under Daubert, expert witnesses need not examine a plaintiff to come to a reliable opinion.  Thus, the motion to exclude the evidence was denied.
  2. United States of America v. Mark Spangler – United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – January 15th, 2016 – The defendant appeals the lower court opinion which convicted him of wire fraud, money laundering, and investment-advisor fraud.  Spangler maintains that the district court erred in excluding the expert witness testimony of John Keller (forensic accounting expert witness).  He maintains that Keller’s testimony would have been relevant as to his intent to defraud his clients.  The appeals court disagreed and affirmed the opinion of the lower court.
  3. Howard v. Offshore Liftboats, LLC et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – January 19th, 2016 – In this maritime personal injury case, the plaintiffs were injured while transferring a personnel basket from one ship to another.  The defendants filed separate motions to excluder the expert witness testimony of David Cole (admiralty & maritime expert witnesses).  Both of the objections were based on whether Cole was qualified to testify.  The court granted the motion filed by K&K Offshore and granted in part the motion filed by OLB.
Continue reading

by

This is part one of a two-part post on a lengthy and detailed opinion.

Plaintiffs sued the manufacturer of the airplane they were on when it crashed.  Both parties called numerous experts to assist in proving their case.  The court denied most of the motions, but granted some in part.

Continue reading

by

 

  1. In re: William and Myo Shears – United States District Court – Western District of Washington – January 4th, 2016 – This is an admiralty litigation involving a fire on a motor yacht.  The petitioners initiated this case for Exoneration or Limitation of liability as they became aware that their vessel may have caused the fire and caused damage to other vessels in their dock.  The petitioners have asked the court exclude the expert witness testimony of Richard Carman (Fire Expert Witness) as unreliable.  The court deemed that any objections to the expert witness testimony should go to the weight, not the admissibility.
  2. Hooks v. Ferguson – Court of Appeals of Michigan – January 5th, 2016 – This is a medical malpractice case involving a laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery.  During the surgery, improperly placed clips on the cystic duct caused a blocked common bile duct.  The plaintiff sued the doctor for malpractice and hired Leonard F. Milewski (General Surgery Expert Witnesses) to assist in proving her case.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude Dr. Milewski’s opinion, stating that it was a “negligence per se” standard as well as not meeting all of the factors in connection with MCL 600.  The trial court agreed, excluding the witness and granting summary judgment.  The appeals court disagreed, and reversed the opinion.