Expert Witness Blog

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that each year in the United States, emergency departments treat more than 200,000 children ages 14 and younger for playground related injuries (Tinsworth D, McDonald J., Special Study: Injuries and Deaths Associated with Children’s Playground Equipment. Washington, DC, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2001). Tinsworth also reported that approximately 45% of playground-related injuries are severe – fractures, internal injuries, concussions, dislocations, and amputations. In QUESTIONS, ANSWERS and FALLACIES ON PLAYGROUND SAFETY, school safety expert witness Scott A. Burton, Safety Play, Inc., writes on ASTM standards s for the American Society for Testing and Materials.

ASTM creates safety standards for many industries, including playgrounds for public use, home use, children under two, soft-contained playgrounds, playground fencing, playground & sports surfacing, trampolines, sports equipment and facilities, amusement rides, etc.

Some or all of the playground safety standards are law in some states, and for some entities who have adopted it into their bylaws.

In Frequent Contract Planning Risks, contract manufacturing expert witness Robert G. Freid writes on the importance of the contract prior to the start of work.

– Customers have their greatest negotiating leverage before start of work. Once work starts it is often difficult to reverse course because of time constraints and resources.

– About a third of my outsourcing consulting services involves work as a consultant in legal disputes between customers and suppliers, and millions of dollars in damage claims. In most cases, no contract existed between the parties – at best, only an MOU. I’ve recently been an expert witness in such a matter with 10,000 pages of depositions and 1,000 exhibits from both sides. Very expensive.

In CHIROPRACTIC / MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSATION AND THE DEGENERATIVE SPINE, medical malpractice expert witness Richard K. Skala, DC, writes:

Proving or disproving Legal Medical Causation is based on testimony by expert witnesses regarding the “proximate” cause of negligence to a standard of reasonable medical probability. The plaintiff bears the burden of its expert being able to conclude to this standard that indeed negligence occurred and thus damage ensued. The defense expert bears the opposite burden of concluding to the same standard that there was no cause of negligence and thus no damage.

Regardless of which side of the argument an expert speaks to, their conclusions must be persuasive in terms of causation. The standard of reasonable medical probability essentially means that “it is more probable than not” that a chiropractor did or did not do something negligent during the course of treating a patient that resulted or caused some degree of damage. Experts on both sides of the arguments must be able to demonstrate that the conclusions they pose as “within reasonable medical probability” have enough evidentiary weight to convince a reasonable person that their conclusions are in fact correct.

In Personal Injury Litigation – the Difference Between Future Earnings and Future Earning Capacity, economic damages expert witness Ronald T. Luke, JD, PhD and Mary L. Hoane, CPA/CFF, MBA write:

This paper discusses one of many issues that can arise in calculating economic damages in personal injury litigation. The issue is the important distinction between projecting a person’s future earnings and a person’s future earning capacity. Earnings are defined as remuneration of a worker for services performed during a specific period of time. When projecting future earnings the economist is projecting the amount the person would have earned but for an injury. When projecting future earning capacity the economist is projecting the amount the person could have earned if he had chosen to maximize his earnings.

In litigation where the injured party remains alive and able to receive a damages award, the correct measure of damages is loss of future earning capacity; the amount the injured party could have earned had the injury not occurred less the amount he could earn given the physical or mental limitations resulting from the injury. When the injured party is deceased, the measure of damages in a wrongful death case is the amount of support the survivors would have received from the injured party. The starting point in calculating the amount of support is the projected earnings of the deceased: the amount the deceased would have earned and from which support could have been paid to the survivors.

In Do I need a forensic accountant or valuations expert in my case? business & accounting expert witness Richard Teichner, CPA, CVA, CDFAJ answers frequently asked questions attorneys have regarding forensic accountants and about business valuations.

Certified public accountants who provide litigation support services are often referred to as “forensic accountants”. They normally are used as experts in accounting related matters that are necessary in support of business or family law litigation matters. What makes forensic accountants different is that they are experienced in using multiple methods of financial and economic analysis to provide appropriate and objective conclusions on complex financial issues, often when the facts or data are incomplete. If you are representing a client in a matter that requires financial evaluation, such as a determination of economic damages, tracing funds that have been diverted, personal injury and other matters involving financial issues, then a forensic accountant can be a valuable asset to your case. If a business valuation is needed as a means to measure damages or for other purposes in litigation, in divorce matters, or regarding the purchase or sale of a business (or business interest), then a business valuator can assist in the process.

Forensic accountants often have experience in serving as an expert witness. When explaining complex financial analyses to the trier of fact, it is imperative that your expert witness is skilled at clearly and accurately explaining the details in a manner that can be easily understood. Expert witnesses also must be objective and utilize generally acceptable practices in order for their testimony to be credible and admissible.

Neurosurgery expert witnesses may consult on trauma neurosurgery, neurosurgeons, spinal surgery, and related matters. In Rules for Neurosurgical Medical/Legal Expert Opinion Services The American Association of Neurological Surgeons writes that “the American legal system often calls for expert medical testimony.”

Proper functioning of this system requires that when such testimony is needed, it be truly expert, impartial and available to all litigants. To that end, the following rules have been adopted by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. These rules apply to all AANS members providing expert opinion services to attorneys, litigants, or the judiciary in the context of civil or criminal matters and include written expert opinions as well as sworn testimony.

A. Impartial Testimony 1. The neurosurgical expert witness shall be an impartial educator for attorneys, jurors and the court on the subject of neurosurgical practice.