Results for: Alexander Richard Vaccaro
Alexander Richard Vaccaro
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. Alexander Richard Vaccaro, III, M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A., F.A.A.O.S., F.A.C.S., is an orthopedic surgery expert witness from Pennsylvania. His expertise also includes spinal cord injuries and business administration. He has active medical practitionerâ€™s licenses from the states of Pennsylvania, California, Delaware, Hawaii, New York and New Jersey. He is also certified by the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery. He completed his schooling in 1979 from the Pascack Valley Regional High School in New Jersey and subsequently completed his B.S. in Biology, Summa cum Laude in 1983. He then earned his M.D., cum Laude in 1987 from the Georgetown University School of Medicine. He then completed internship in Surgery in 1988 and residency in Orthopedic Surgery in 1992 from the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center at Los Angeles, California and the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital Affiliated Programs. He further completed fellowship in Spine in 1993 from the University of California at San Diego. He also completed his Ph.D. in 2007 and his Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) in 2015 and from the University of Utrecht at Utrecht, the Netherlands and the Temple University Fox School of Business at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Currently, Dr. Vaccaro is the Chairman of Orthopaedics at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College and the Richard H. Rothman Professor and Chairman at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery of the Thomas Jefferson University. He is the fellow of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American College of Surgeons. He also has numerous publications to his credit. He currently resides in Philadelphia and can be contacted by (267) 339-3500
A previous Expert Challenge Study on Alexander Richard Vaccaro'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.