Expert Witness Blog

Summary: Economics Expert Witness testimony is not allowed because the plaintiff did not show that the expert’s adoption of the ADT Model and Mangum’s Representative Industry Model was reliable.

Facts: This case (ADT LLC, et al. v. Vivint Smart Home, Inc., et al – United States District Court – Southern District of Florida – May 19th, 2023) involves numerous claims: unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, common law unfair competition, trade slander/commercial disparagement, and tortious interference with advantageous business relationships. The plaintiff, ADT, alleges that the defendant, Vivint Smart Home misled ADT customers through false sales tactics, such as switching out ADT equipment for Vivint and by telling the customer that ADT has been bought out and vivid is taking over their accounts. The plaintiffs hired Economics Expert Witness Dr. Eric Matolo to provide testimony their behalf.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from providing an expert witness opinion.

Continue reading

Summary:  Corporate Governance Expert Witness testimony not allowed because the court found that his expert report used factual narrative that did not have any technical or scientific conclusions.

Facts: This case (Jones et al v. Bain Capital Private Equity et al – United States District Court – Western District of Tennessee – January 9th, 2024) involves a class action complaint filed by members of the defendant’s cheerleading camps.  The plaintiffs allege that they paid artificially inflated prices for certain goods and services, such as enrollment in cheer competitions and apparel which was purchased indirectly from the plaintiff.  To assist in their case, the plaintiffs hired Corporate Governance Expert Witness James H. Aronoff to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Aronoff.

Continue reading

Summary:  Mortgage Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendant argued that he was not qualified to offer an opinion because he has never worked for a mortgage servicer or servicing regulator.

Facts:  This case (United States ex rel. Mitchell v. CIT Bank, N.A. – United States District Court – Eastern District of Texas – April 26, 2022) involves a claim under the False Claims Act (FCA).  The Relator, Andrew Mitchell, through the plaintiff, The United States, alleges that the defendant, One West Bank, submitted false claims to the Government in order to obtain payment under three Government loan-modification programs.  Mitchel alleges that One West Bank certified to numerous Government agencies that it was in compliance with specific laws and regulations, despite it knowing that it was not.  One West Bank’s false certifications caused the government to make payments to the bank that it wouldn’t have made.  In order to assist in his case, Mitchell hired Mortgage Expert Witness Nelson Locke, Esq. to provide expert testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Architecture Expert Witness testimony is allowed despite the fact that the defendant argued that his opinion was based on inaccurate data because he did not examine the display boxes at issue in this case.

Facts:  This case (Ellen Boccio v. Costco Wholesale Corporation – United States District Court – Southern District of New York – March 30th, 2022) involves a personal injury claim.  Plaintiff Boccio alleges that she was in the Defendant’s store and when she approached the section of Christmas cards on display, several of the boxed which stored the Christmas cards fell on her , which caused her to fall on her back and buttocks to the ground.  As a result, Boccio claims that she broke her lumbar vertebra.  Boccio then filed a lawsuit claiming negligence towards Costco.  In order to prove her case, Boccio hired Architecture Expert Witnesses Frederick G. Bremer to provide expert witness testimony.  Costco filed a motion to preclude Bremer from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Aerospace Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify in part despite defendants’ argument that he does not have knowledge of the actual regulations that were violated.

Facts: This case (Aircraft Holding Solutions LLC et al v. Learjet Inc et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – July 29, 2022) involves a claim of damages to a Bombardier Challenger 300 during routine maintenance.  The plaintiffs filed this action after the airplane fell from it’s jacks.  The plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to damages for the value of the aircraft and other damages as a result of the defendant’s negligence.  The plaintiffs hired Aerospace Engineering Expert Witness Pat Duggins to provide expert testimony.  The defendants have filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness allowed to testify as the court ruled that his expert opinion was reliable as he reconstructed the accident based on the truck driver.

Facts:  This case (Irwin Tripp v. Walmart, Inc et al – United States District Court – Middle District of Florida – November 16, 2022) involves a personal injury lawsuit.  The plaintiff, Irwin Tripp, was injured when a terminal tractor hit him and dragged him after unloading goods.  The plaintiff sustained horrible injuries, losing both his legs in the accident.  The defendant hired Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness Donald J. Fournier to provide expert witness testimony.  The plaintiff filed a motion to to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness allowed to testify even though the defendant argued that his expert opinion should be excluded because he did not conduct an accident reconstruction report.

Facts:  This case (Hix-Hernandez v. Ford Motor Co. – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – July 25, 2022) involves a products-liability claim against Ford Motor Company.  The plaintiff, Staci Hix-Hernandez, claims that she was injured when a battery dislodged from an Ford F-150 truck after it collided with a tractor-trailer.  Hix Hernandez says that the battery became airborne and crashed through her windshield and hit her in the face.  She states that she sustained numerous injuries due to the accident including facial fractures, chemical burns to her face, as well as physical and emotional trauma.  Hix-Hernandez filed suit against Ford Motor, claiming that the battery was defectively secured in the compartment of the F-150 and that the design of the battery restraint in the F-150 was flawed.  Hix-Hernandez hired Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness Jahan Rasty, Ph.D to provide expert witness testimony in this case.  Ford has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Overview:  Occupational Medicine Expert Witness testimony is granted in part because part of the expert’s testimony on the company’s negligence was a legal conclusion and not allowed.

Facts:  This case  (Malone et al v. Spence et al – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – August 9th, 2023) involves a motor vehicle accident. The defendant was operating a tractor-trailer and drove off a roadway and crashed into two vehicles that were parked at a convenience store, injuring two people who were sleeping at the time.  The plaintiffs allege that the driver did not maintain proper control of the truck and was operating a commercial vehicle even though he was unqualified, fatigued, which was in violation of numerous local, state, and federal laws.  To prove their case, the plaintiffs hired Occupational Medicine Expert Witness Stefanos Kales to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Orthopedic Surgeon Expert Witness testimony is allowed despite the plaintiff’s argument that he is not qualified to offer opinions on medical rates.

Facts:  This case (Galvez v. KLLM Transp. Servs., LLC – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – December 16th, 2021) involves a claim to recover damages resulting from a collision between two vehicles.   The plaintiff hired Orthopedic Surgeon Expert Witness Andrew Indresano, M.D. to provide expert testimony on her behalf.  The defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert witness from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary:  Industrial Medicine Expert Witness testimony not allowed even though the plaintiff’s claim that her conclusions are supported by the facts.

Facts:  This case (Hill v. The GEO Group – United States District Court – Western District of Louisiana – December 21st, 2021) involves a negligence claim against the defendants regarding workplace conditions, specifically exposure to mold. The plaintiffs claims that the facility in which they worked had a long history of flooding and that condensation from the air conditioner would drip on their heads.  The plaintiffs assert that exposure to mold caused numerous medical conditions such as headaches, sore throats, and fatigue. To prove their case, the plaintiffs have hired Industrial Medicine Expert Witness Dr. Stephanie Cave to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendants has filed a motion to exclude Dr. Cave’s testimony.

Continue reading