Expert Witness Blog
Plaintiff filed suit against defendant related to a personal injury claim. Plaintiff hired a Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness to provide testimony. Defendant filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying. The court denied the motion to exclude.
Facts: This case (Haines v. Get Air Tucson Incorporated et al – United States District Court – District of Arizona – July 31st, 2019) involves a personal injury claim. The plaintiff was injured when he was performing a flip at the defendant’s indoor trampoline park. He is now a quadriplegic. The plaintiff has hired Anthony Gamboa (Vocational Evaluation & Rehabilitation Expert Witness) to provide expert witness testimony. The defendant has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.
Discussion: The defendant first argues that Dr. Gamboa is not qualified to offer expert opinions on the plaintiff’s lost income or the present value of the plaintiff’s future medical care. The defendant argues that Dr. Gamboa incorrectly uses the term “postdoctoral studies” to refer to a university class in which he enrolled in after receiving an unrelated Ph.D. in guidance and counseling. In addition, the defendant argues that Dr. Gamboa’s opinions about lost future earnings are not reliable and not sufficiently tailored to the plaintiff’s injuries or life circumstances.
The plaintiff replies that Dr. Gamboa is qualified to offer an opinion in this case and that he has extensive experience as an expert in state and district court cases across the country.
The court opines that Dr. Gamboa is qualified to offer an opinion in this case. The court notes that although the defendant is correct that Dr. Gamboa’s degrees are unrelated to his current work, he is qualified through education and experience to present expert testimony on the plaintiff’s lost earnings and the value of the plaintiff’s future medical care.
The court opines that Dr. Gamboa has numerous years of relevant experience and dozens of relevant publications and that his education and experience qualify him to offer an opinion in this case.
In addition, the court also opines that Dr. Gamboa’s lost-earning’s testimony is sufficiently relevant and reliable under Daubert. The court notes first that Dr. Gamboa has specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact in this case. Second, the court opines that Dr. Gamboa’s testimony is based on sufficient facts or data as he relied on specific information about the plaintiff as well as reliable data sources.
Third, the court opines that Dr. Gamboa’s testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods. Last, the court opines that Dr. Gamboa reliably applied his principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Conclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Anthony Gamboa is denied.