Expert Witness Blog

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

Summary: Software Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defense argued that his opinions were not reliable because they were based on apposite facts.

Facts: This case (SiteLock LLC v. GoDaddy.com LLC – United States District Court – District of Arizona – March 2nd, 2022) involves a breach of contract claim.  SiteLock entered into a contract with GoDaddy whereas GoDaddy agreed to sell SiteLock’s security services.  When a GoDaddy customer purchased a SiteLock subscription, and took the steps to activate the service, a sale of the proceeds would go to SiteLock.  SiteLock claims that if a GoDaddy customer purchased a SiteLock subscription, but failed to activate it, GoDaddy would still provide a sale of the proceeds to SiteLock.  GoDaddy claims that this was not part of the agreement.  In order to prove their claims, SiteLock hired Software Expert Witness Dr. Steven Kursh to provide expert testimony.  GoDaddy has filed a motion to exclude Dr. Kursh from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Electronics Expert Witness not allowed to testify in contract case even though he owns a small business performing audio-visual installations.

Facts:  This case (Peters v. Best Buy Stores, LP – United States District Court – District of Maryland – March 3rd, 2022) involves a breach of contract claim filed against Best Buy. The plaintiff, Nnena Ella Peters, says that she went to Best Buy to order numerous televisions and appliances.  She claims that staff at Best Buy convinced her that the company and its subsidiaries had the experience, reputation and size to handle the project.  By 2020, Peters alleges that the systems in her house were not working to her satisfaction even though best Buy continued to work on the project.  She then filed suit against the company.  In order to prove her case, Peters hired Electronics Expert Witness Mr. Orjan Dhimitri Gjoni to provide expert testimony.  Best Buy has filed a motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Mr. Gjoni.

Continue reading

Summary: Employment Expert Witness testimony allowed in part even though the plaintiff argued that it is up to the judge and the jury to to decide liability based on the evidence in the case.

Facts:  This case (Dickson v. The Bosworth – United States District Court – Western District of Texas – May 13th, 2022) involves a claim of racial discrimination.  The defendant, Bosworth has hired Employment Expert Witness W. Clark Lea to provide testimony on its behalf.   The defendant hired Mr. Lea to provide expert testimony on whether or not Bosworth performed reasonable care to prevent or correct harassing and discriminatory behavior and whether Dickson did not take advantage of any corrective or preventative behavior which was provided by Bosworth.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from providing expert witness testimony.

Continue reading

Summary: Licensing Expert Witness testimony was allowed despite the expert relying on the testimony of third parties.

Facts:  This case (Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated – United States District Court – Northern District of California – December 10th, 2018) involves a complicated interaction between cellular communications standards, standard essential patents (“SEPs”), and the market for baseband processors, or “modem chips”.  The plaintiff has hired Richard L. Donaldson (Licensing Expert Witness) to provide expert testimony on their behalf.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Mortgages Expert Witness testimony allowed in spite of defendant’s arguments that the expert does not offer Payment Waiver Protection programs in his own business.

Facts:  This case (Schneider et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al – United States District Court – District of Kansas – August 13th, 2019) involves a mortgage dispute.  The plaintiffs refinanced a residential mortgage loan with the defendants.  The plaintiffs have brought this lawsuit for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and failure to refinance.  The plaintiffs have hired A.W. Pickel (Mortgages Expert Witness) to provide expert witness testimony.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Combustion Engineering Expert Witness testimony allowed even though the defendants argued that his opinions were unreliable based on his reliance of conclusions of one problem vehicle.

Facts:  This case (Counts, et al. v. General Motors, LLC – United States District Court – Eastern District of Michigan – June 9th, 2022) involves a claim by consumers who purchased a 2014 or 2015 Chevrolet Cruze diesel from the defendant.  The plaintiffs allege that they overpaid for their vehicles because they were tricked into purchasing a Cruze with “defeat devices” that made its emissions comply with numerous state and federal regulations.  The plaintiffs claim that their Cruze vehicles emit dangerous amounts of oxides of nitrogen, which exceed state and federal emission standards.   The plaintiffs hired Combustion Engineering Expert Witness Juston Smithers to provide expert witness testimony in this case.  General Motors has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Preventive Medicine Expert Witness allowed to provide testimony even though the defendant states that he was not qualified to offer an expert opinions on technical matters of cardiology.

Facts:  This case (Levitt v. Merck & Co., Inc. – U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri – May 28th, 2019) involves a claim against the defendant alleging that she suffered two heart attacks in 2001 as a result of taking the drug Vioxx.  In order to prove her claim, the plaintiff hired Preventive Medicine Expert Witness David Egilman, M.D.  The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading

Summary: Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness testimony was allowed even though the plaintiff argued that the doctor did not provide an explanation that splinting was the best course of treatment for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Facts:  This case (Witkin v. Lotersztain – United States District Court – Eastern District of California – June 23, 2022) involves a claim by a prisoner against a medical doctor.  The plaintiff, Michael Aaron Witkin, says that he was injured during a game of flag football and the doctor, J. Lin, did not provide adequate care which violated Witkin’s Eighth Amendment rights.  Witkin states that he fractured a finger on his hand.  The defendant has hired Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness Alexandra Burgar to provide testimony in this case.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.

Continue reading