Expert Witness News, Articles, Reports and Reference Documents

Sep 11 ’18 — Not treating the same condition within five years of a malpractice claim disqualifies medical expert witnesses, the Supreme Court of Montana has ruled, excluding the 30-year board-certified orthopedic surgeon still in active practice.

Aug 1 ’18 — Opining as to the cause of death of a pickup truck driver, an expert witness — in direct violation of the court’s instructions — assisted in causing a mistrial that the plaintiff’s attorney claims was deliberately done by Ford Motor Company’s attorney.

Jul 31 ’18 — With job number estimates possibly “conjured out of whole cloth, ” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a vocational experts’ opinion on the availability of work for a woman severely disabled by a brain tumor.

Jul 27 ’18 — Assuming a testosterone gel was used as prescribed, an expert opined the medication caused his plaintiff’s deep vein thrombosis, only to have the plaintiff admit in deposition that he used half-doses of the medication sporadically, and applied it wrongly

Jun 18 ’18 (Updated Jun 22 ’18) — Failing to address unknown causes for a plaintiff’s leukemia, a causation expert witness was reasonably excluded by the trial court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit recently ruled, dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal.

Jun 22 ’18 — Diverging from standard methodologies may provide the desired results for a report, but it may not pass a Daubert challenge, as this trademark infringement case aptly demonstrates.

Jun 19 ’18 — Embellishing qualifications can backfire on expert witnesses; lying can get one jail time. Just ask “Doctor” Byrd.

May 30 ’18 — What an expert witness sees as sufficient foundation for a professional opinion may not be the same as a court, as evidenced by the exclusion of expert testimony in a manufacturer liability case involving the crash of a single-engine airplane.

May 22 ’18 — An medical expert witness need not be a treating specialist of the malady to explain it on the witness stand, a New Jersey appellate panel has ruled, upholding the lower court finding that the doctors were not substantially liable.