Results for: Alan Stephen Feit
Alan Stephen Feit
Brooklyn, New York
If you're not satisfied,
we don't expect you to pay.
That's our commitment and your guarantee. Simply ask for a refund.
Dr. Alan Stephen Feit, M.D. is an interventional cardiology expert witness from New Jersey. He also has expertise in cardiovascular diseases and internal medicine. He has active medical licenses from the sates of New Jersey, New York and Florida. He is also certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine. He completed his Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering cum laude in 1968 from the City College of New York and then earned his Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the Syracuse University in 1971. He subsequently earned his Doctor of Medicine in 1975 from the Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons. He then pursued his internship and residency in Medicine and his fellowship in Cardiology from the Roosevelt Hospital at New York City, New York. Currently, Dr. Feit is serving as a Professor of Medicine and the Director of the Cardiology Inpatient Unit in the Department of Medicine at the State University of New York, Downstate Health Sciences University. He also serves as an attending physician in the university hospital of Brooklyn at the State University of New York Downstate Health Sciences University and Kings County Hospital. He also has numerous publications to his credit.
A previous Expert Challenge Study on Alan Stephen Feit's revealed:
Preliminary Screening Report
The PSR has the added value of identifying challenges to the expert’s testimony in reported cases, through our sister company, The Daubert Tracker.
Because the cost of the Screening Report will be deducted from the cost of the full report, it is always best to begin the research process with a PSR.
Drawn from the broadest array of public and proprietary databases, these inexpensive ($25.00) reports include the number of times the expert’s name was found in:
- Affidavits and Reports
- Federal Agency Decisions
- Jury Verdict Reports
- State Agency Decisions
- Transcripts and Depositions
In summary, the PSR will give you an idea of how prolific a testifier the expert has been, whether or not there is a likelihood of challenge activity in the expert’s past and help to define the level of additional research required.
Expert Challenge Study
Like the Profile, the Expert Challenge Study is created by a team of professional expert witness researchers, all lawyers, who have access to databases not readily available to most law firms.
- The expert was deemed not qualified (unqualified).
- The expert’s methods were questionable, suspicious, not valid (invalid), lacking or inadequate.
- The expert was not credible (incredible) or believable (unbelievable).
- The testimony was outside the scope of the expertise of the expert.
- The testimony was not relevant (irrelevant).
- The testimony was not reliable (unreliable).
- The testimony was flawed.
- The expert’s methods were not scientific (unscientific).
- The testimony was speculative.
- The expert was deemed not competent, incompetent.
- The testimony was questionable.
- The testimony was predicated on an improper (or was lacking) foundation, basis or grounds.
- The testimony was based on insufficient evidence, false assumptions or evidence not in the record.
- The expert drew conclusions not supported by the evidence.
- The testimony of the expert was impeached.
- The testimony was based on methods which were unscientific (not scientific, junk science).
- The testimony would not assist the trier of fact.
- The testimony was, amounted to or drew a legal conclusion.
- The testimony was used to support a motion for summary judgment and the motion was granted/ denied.
- There were two conflicting expert testimonies and the case was decided in the favor of one party (thereby implying that one expert’s testimony was given more weight than another’s).
- The testimony or opinion was conclusory.
- Any other assessment of the expert or his/her testimony which reflects on or affects the assessment of the overall qualifications and credibility of the expert – either in a good or a bad way, particularly critical comments of any kind by the judge who wrote the opinion (even if there was no formal attempt to exclude or limit the testimony of the expert on the part of one of the attorneys.
All of the data and information in the Expert Challenge Study is contained in the full Expert Witness Profile.