by
  1. Rish v. Simao – Nevada Supreme Court – March 17th, 2016 – This case involves a “low-impact” accident between two automobiles.  After the accident, Simao brought suit against Rish for damages to cover the cost of injuries.  At the district court level,  Simao filed a motion to exclude any testimony by anyone (including  Dr. David Fish, Rish’s orthopedic expert witness) stating that the crash was “low-impact”, citing a previous case in the Nevada Supreme Court (Hallmark v. Eldridge).  The district court agreed with Simeo and, subsequently, opined in his favor.  Rish appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which disagreed with the lower court, reversed the decision, and remanded the case for a new trial.
  2. Gibson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. – United States District Court – Southern District of Mississippi – March 17th, 2016 – This is a personal injury case involving the drug Paxil.  The plaintiff claims that the defendant promoted the use of the drug for women who were pregnant and hired  Dr. Aaron M. Wolfson as a vocational evaluation & rehabilitation expert witness to help prove her case.   The defendant sought to exclude the testimony, stating that it was incomplete, speculative, and based on insufficient evidence.  In addition, the plaintiff argued that the testimony would not assist the trier of fact.  The court granted the motion to exclude the testimony.
  3. Gross v. Balt. Aircoil Co – United States District Court – Southern District of Mississippi – March 17th, 2016 – This is a personal injury case in which a couple allegedly contracted Legionnaire’s disease while staying at a hotel.  They argue that this was caused by a defective water-cooling tower at the hotel and filed sued against numerous companies related to the tower.  In order to prove their case, they hired  Robert Cunningham, a water/sewage treatment engineering expert witness.  The defendants moved to exclude a portion of Cunningham’s testimony, specifically his opinion that a representative of NCH Corporation (which provided water treatment services to the tower at the hotel) acted reasonably when he recommended one water treatment chemical for the tower.  The court denied the motion to exclude.
Continue reading

by
  1. Smart v. BNSF Railway Co. – Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas – March 4th, 2016 – This case involves a work-related injury filed under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.  The Appellee (smart) appeals an order from the district court which granted summary judgment for the Appellant (BNSF).  The court had excluded the various experts that were called by the Smart in order to prove breach of duty and causation.  Specifically, the district court excluded the testimony of Dr. Tyler Kress (ergonomics expert witness) stating that it would not be helpful to the trier of fact.  The appeals court agreed and affirmed the opinion.
  2. Beede v. Stiefel Labs., Inc. – United States District Court – Northern District of New York – March 7th, 2016 – The Plaintiffs in this case sued defendants for, among other counts, securities fraud.  The defendants hired  Lance T. Studdard and Chester Gougis (financial planning expert witnesses) to provide expert witness testimony on their behalf and the Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude their opinions.  The motion was denied in part and granted in part.
  3. R.C. v. State – District Court of Appeal of Florida – Second District – March 11th, 2016 – This case involves the appeal of a disposition of probation upon a juvenile (R.C.).   The juvenile was found guilty of possession of marijuana and placed on probation.  R.C. subsequently appealed the disposition, stating that the district court erred when it allowed a law enforcement officer’s police procedures expert witness testimony which identified cannabis on the appellant.  R.C. stated that this testimony does not adhere to the new Daubert standard for the admissibility of expert witness testimony, arguing that the opinion was “pure opinion” and that it was not based on scientifically supported data and methodology.  The appeals court stated that although the state of Florida has incorporated the more rigorous standard for expert witness testimony, the courts have already settled on the issue of what type of expertise is needed to detect cannabis on an individual.
Continue reading

by
  1. McCrary v. John W. Stone Oil Distributor, L.L.C. – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – February 26th, 2016 – This is a personal injury case where a seaman was injured during his workday on a boat operated by Defendants.  The Plaintiff hired  Captain James Jamison as an admiralty & maritime expert witnesses to provide testimony.  The Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony based on unreliability.  The court denied the motion.
  2. Fond du Lac Bumper Exchange Inc v. Jui Li Enterprise Company Ltd et al – United States District Court – Eastern District of Wisconsin – February 26th, 2016 – In this antitrust litigation involving direct purchasers and indirect purchasers of aftermarket sheet metal products, the Plaintiffs have hired Dr. Russell Lamb (economics expert witness) to prove the elements needed to prove class certification.   The Defendants filed a motion to exclude this testimony stating that Dr. Lamb used flawed methodology.  The court denied the motion.
  3. Releford v. City of Houston – United States District Court – Southern District of Texas – February 29th, 2016 – This case involves the fatal shooting of a man by a police officer.  The man’s estate filed suit, alleging civil rights violations.  The Plaintiff hired William Rathburn, a law enforcement expert witness, to provide testimony on police procedures and the Defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony, based on qualifications and reliability.  The court denied the motion.
Continue reading

by

Plaintiff sued manufacturer of trash conveyor for numerous allegations, including design defect, after being injured while utilizing the machine on the job.  The Plaintiff hired Roelof H. deVries to provide expert witness testimony on her behalf.  Defendant filed a motion to exclude this testimony.  The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

Continue reading

by

Toxicology Expert Witness John P. Bederka, Ph.D. of TOXICULL Associates writes in his article about the need for businesses,  governments,  legal  entities,  and  scientists to effectively evaluate the increasing prevalence of marijuana use.  He poses and analyzes many questions in the article, including the following:

1. Is there any relationships between blood THC v. brain THC?

2.How does the percent THC in the smoked marijuana cigarette relate to blood levels of THC in the user?

Continue reading

by
  1. Martinez-Morales v. Martens – Supreme Court of Alaska – February 19th, 2016 – This case involves an accident in a parking lot where a car struck a pedestrian.  Rhonda Martens was found not negligent by a jury in the lower court.  Martinez-Morales appeals the opinion on numerous issues, one being that the lower court erroneously allowed Marten’s accident reconstruction expert witness, Bob Butcher, to provide testimony.  The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court opinion.
  2. Dial Corp. v. News Corp – United States District Court – Southern District of New York – February 16th, 2016 – In this antitrust litigation involving third-party in-store promotions, the Plaintiffs’ filed a motion In Limine to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ economic expert witness, Dr. Dennis W. Carlton.  The court denied the motion.
  3. Kintzel v. Kleeman – United States District Court – Middle District of Pennsylvania – February 19th, 2016 – This case involves a civil rights complaint against a police officer.  The Plaintiff hired Captain William Williams of the Pennsylvania State Police as a Wireless Technology Expert, specifically the evaluation of the GPS used by the State Police.  The Defendant challenged this testimony on qualification grounds.  The court granted the motion.
Continue reading

by
  1. Hernandez v. City of Findlay – United States District Court – Northern District of Ohio – February 12th, 2016 – In this case of alleged excessive force by a policeman, the Plaintiff hired Andrew J. Scott, III as a police procedures expert witness.  The defense challenged this testimony on reliability grounds and the court agreed.  The testimony of Andrew J. Scott, III was excluded.
  2. Nagle v. Gusman – United States District Court – Eastern District of Louisiana – February 10th and February 12th, 2016 – This case involves a civil rights action against numerous employees at the Orleans Parish Prison.  The Plaintiffs are siblings of a prisoner who committed suicide while on the watch by the prison.  Both parties called expert witnesses to the stand and both were subsequently challenged.  The Defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. James F. Hooper (neurology expert witness) and the Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Ford (psychiatry expert witness).  In two separate opinions, the court denied in part and granted in part the respective motions to exclude.
  3. Hernandez v. Leichliter et al – United States District Court – Southern District of New York – February 18th, 2016 – In this case involving a car accident on the George Washington Bridge, the Plaintiff hired Dr. James Pugh as a biomechanist expert witness to opine on causation.  The Defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony based on the reliability of methodology.  The court granted the motion.
Continue reading