Expert Witness Blog

In CHIROPRACTIC / MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CAUSATION AND THE DEGENERATIVE SPINE, medical malpractice expert witness Richard K. Skala, DC, writes that the “chiropractic expert will be challenged by the opposing party during deposition and/or trial in terms of the foundation used to come to their conclusions within a reasonable medical probability.” (See here for Part 1.)

EXPERTS WEIGH IN The defense chiropractic expert testified, on review of the medical record, noting the lack of full history disclosure on the part of the farmer in regards to prior medical treatment and imaging. Discussing also the DC examination findings and the absence of any red flags during the history and exam, the DC expert concluded that the standard of care had not been violated. The DC expert, relying on training in x-ray interpretation, testified that the initial MD was correct that the degenerative changes were age and occupation consistent. The DC expert also testified that the degeneration indicated a long standing and developing disc condition at L5/S1. Finally, the DC expert noted various treatment guidelines that indicate imaging is not mandatory in the absence of red flags.

The defense expert neurosurgeon testified that it was “unlikely” that the DC treatment significantly caused or worsened the farmer’s disc herniation. The neurosurgeon also testified that muscle weakness following Laminectomy, foraminotomy L5/S1 discectomy was not uncommon and cited multiple studies that listed leg muscle weakness as a risk of the surgery.

Automotive expert witnesses may opine on automotive design, automotive technology, fuel economy and related aspects of the automotive industry. In the news, automakers Hyundai and Kia have agreed to pay a $100 million civil penalty to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations. An EPA investigation found that the companies touted lower gas mileage and greenhouse gas emissions on 1.2M vehicles than test results showed. In a large number of tests, both Hyundai and Kia chose favorable data rather than average results. In certain cases, Hyundai and Kia relied predominantly on data gathered when test vehicles were aided by a tailwind.

In a 11/03/2014 press release, the EPA states:

United States Reaches Settlement with Hyundai and Kia in Historic Greenhouse Gas Enforcement Case

In What is Child Abuse? Childhelp.org states: “Child abuse consists of any act of commission or omission that endangers or impairs a child’s physical or emotional health and development. Child abuse includes any damage done to a child which cannot be reasonably explained and which is often represented by an injury or series of injuries appearing to be non-accidental in nature.” Child abuse expert witnesses are effective advocates for children and may advise regarding child abuse and neglect, child maltreatment, and child sexual abuse. At Forensic Pediatrics Consultants.com, board certified doctors and experts in child abuse, pediatrics, and forensic interviews describe Forms of Child Abuse:

Physical abuse Any non-accidental injury to a child. This includes hitting, kicking, slapping, shaking, burning, pinching, hair pulling, biting, choking, throwing, shoving, whipping, and paddling.

Sexual abuse Any sexual act between an adult and child. This includes fondling, penetration, intercourse, exploitation, pornography, exhibitionism, child prostitution, group sex, oral sex, or forced observation of sexual acts.

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.