Anesthesiology Expert’s Testimony on the Value of Promotion Admitted
Posted on October 17, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
Plaintiff, Dr. Sheldon Goldstein, a former physician in the Department of Anesthesiology quit his employment when in 2021, he did not receive a
promotion to Professor on the Clinical Educator Track, the same promotion he did not attain the year prior.
Goldstein alleged that he was subjected to discrimination and harassment because of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). He asserted these claims against Montefiore Medical Center, and Dr. Mattias Eikermann. Montefiore hired Plaintiff on September 30, 2013 as a full-time physician and Professor in the Department of Anesthesiology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine (“Einstein”) while Defendant Eikermann served as the Chairman of Anesthesiology at Montefiore and Plaintiff’s supervisor.
Plaintiff offered Dr. Edward A. Ochroch as a medical school promotions expert. Defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Ochroch, who opines on Plaintiff’s qualifications for promotion, the propriety of Plaintiff’s exclusion from the promotion process, and the relative value of a promotion to clinical professor.
Anesthesiology Expert Witness
Dr. Edward Andrew Ochroch, M.D. is a board-certified anesthesiologist and has worked exclusively as a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania in the Department of Anesthesiology for the past nineteen years. In that time, Ochroch has served as chair of the Departmental Committee on Appointments and Promotions, overseeing and serving on “numerous committees on appointments and promotions.”
Discussion by the Court
I. Background and Opinion of Ochroch
Ochroch opined that: (1) “Plaintiff met all the requirements set forth on the Clinical Educator Checklist for promotion to Clinical Professor in 2021”; (2) Plaintiff “should have been recommended by the Departmental Committee on Appointments and Promotions if Eikermann had not interfered”; (3) “Eikermann’s interference” in the promotion process “was a violation of the Suggested Guidelines for Promotion to Senior Rank”; and (4) given the value of promotion, “by preventing [Plaintiff] from being considered for promotion . . .Eikermann diminished [Plaintiff’s] reputation, limited his employment opportunities, excluded him from consideration for administrative positions, and precluded him from receiving a significant annual increase in wages.”
II. Ochroch’s Qualifications
Defendants argued that Ochroch is unqualified to serve as an expert witness because “being an anesthesiologist does not make him an expert in the promotion process at Montefiore”; that his experience with the academic promotion process is limited to his employment at the University of Pennsylvania; and that “the promotion process at the University of Pennsylvania [is not] an area of expertise.”
The Court found that Ochroch’s experience as a member and chair of the University of Pennsylvania’s committee on appointments and promotion is reasonably closely related to the promotion process at Einstein.
III. Reliability of Ochroch’s Opinions
A. Assessment of Goldstein’s Qualifications for Promotion
As to Ochroch’s opinion that Goldstein met Einstein’s requirements for a promotion to Clinical Professor in 2021, Defendants noted that, in assessing Plaintiff’s qualifications, Ochroch relied exclusively on his experience, the Clinical Educator Checklist published by Einstein, and Plaintiff’s CV and teaching portfolio. Defendants contended that this opinion is unreliable because Ochroch provided no analysis, did not ground the conclusion in facts or a reliable methodology, and impermissibly substituted his own views for those of the promotion committee.
In light of Ochroch’s thirty years of experience, the Court found Ochroch’s opinion that Goldstein had met Einstein’s qualifications for promotion reliable.
B. Assessment of Eikermann’s Role
As to Ochroch’s opinion that Eikermann “contaminated the entire process” in deciding Plaintiff was not eligible for promotion in 2021, Defendants suggested that Plaintiff improperly sought to use Ochroch to present the factual narrative from Plaintiff’s perspective.
Here, Ochroch offered no support beyond his own speculation that Eikermann’s decision to not consider Plaintiff for promotion in 2021 reflected a purposeful effort to exclude Plaintiff.
The Court found Ochroch’s opinion on Eikermann’s role in the failure to promote Plaintiff in 2021 unreliable.
C. Assessment of the Value of a Promotion and Effects of Being Denied a Promotion
As to Ochroch’s opinions on the value of a promotion to Clinical Professor and the negative consequences of not being promoted, Defendants argued that Ochroch lacked the necessary knowledge and experience to testify on these topics.
However, Ochroch provided data on the benefits associated with a promotion to Clinical Professor: he explained that promotion to that level at the University of Pennsylvania comes with an “added six percent of salary or approximately $25,000” in addition to increased retirement benefits; and he noted that “other institutions pay as much as $30,000 annually for a promotion to Clinical Professor.”
Ochroch also described the less easily quantified professional ramifications of promotion to Clinical Professor: more job opportunities, eligibility for “internal and external administrative positions” such as department chair, and additional opportunities to lecture and publish.
And Ochroch discussed the “negative consequences of not being promoted,” stating a physician who fails to be promoted within ten years is presumed “inferior or incompetent or both”; Ochroch concluded that because Plaintiff was not promoted to Clinical Professor, his reputation suffered, his employment opportunities were limited, he was ineligible for administrative positions, and he did not receive significant annual wage increases.
The Court found Ochroch’s opinions on the value of promotion to the rank of Clinical Professor and the professional harm Plaintiff suffered due to being denied the promotion reliable.
IV. Relevance of Ochroch’s Opinions
With respect to Ochroch’s opinions on Goldstein’s qualifications for promotion, Defendants argued that Plaintiff has failed to show that these opinions are based on the witness’ expertise as opposed to matters that the factfinders could understand without an expert’s help.
Ochroch recited Plaintiff’s credentials and opined that, based on Einstein’s promotion rubric, Plaintiff was qualified for promotion.
Defendants’ argument that the factfinders could reach the same conclusion or not on their own therefore has some force. However, Plaintiff’s explanation that the factfinders would require assistance to understand “the world of academic medicine promotions” was also persuasive. The Court concluded that the factfinders would benefit from an explanation of how Goldstein’s professional accomplishments fit within Einstein’s promotion rubric and therefore that Ochroch’s opinions on this subject are relevant and admissible.
V. Ochroch’s Opinions and Rule 403
The Court found that Rule 403 provided an additional basis for finding Ochroch’s opinions on Eikermann’s motivation for and role in the failure to promote Plaintiff in 2021 to be inadmissible to the extent that they are unreliable.
Held
The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Edward A. Ochroch.
Key Takeaway:
Defendants were correct that a party may not present an expert to make “simple inferences drawn from uncomplicated facts,” which do not help the jury and serve only to buttress Plaintiff’s case.
Ochroch, in opining on Eikermann’s role in Einstein’s decision not to consider Plaintiff for promotion, performed just that impermissible function. Jurors can rely on the additional industry context provided by Ochroch to reach their own conclusions about whether Eikermann contaminated the promotion process. Additionally, an expert may not opine on “motivation or intent” without “dispositive support.”
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Goldstein V. Montefiore Medical Center Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 1:22cv6723 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Order Date: | September 25, 2025 |
