Results for: James Justin Abrahams
James Justin Abrahams
New Haven, Connecticut
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. James Justin Abrahams, M.D. is a diagnostic radiology expert witness from Connecticut. He also has expertise in neuroradiology. He has an active medical practitioner’s license from the state of Connecticut and is certified by the American Board of Radiology. He completed his schooling in 1969 from the Great Neck North Senior High at Great Neck, New York. He then completed his B.A. in 1973 from the Alfred University at Alfred, New York and subsequently earned his M.D. in 1977 from the Universidad Autonoma de Guadalajara at Guadalajara, Mexico. He then pursued his internship and residency in General Surgery from the Millard Fillmore Hospital at Buffalo, New York. He further pursued his residency in Diagnostic Radiology, his first fellowship in Abdominal Imaging and his second fellowship in Neuroradiology from the Albany Medical College of Union University, Albany Medical Center Hospital at Albany, New York. He then completed his third fellowship in Neuroradiology from the Yale University School of Medicine at New Haven, Connecticut. Currently, Dr. Abrahams is the Professor Emeritus of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Director of Medical Studies in Diagnostic Radiology and Neuroradiology Fellowship and also the Chief of ENT Radiology at the Yale School of Medicine at New Haven, Connecticut. He has numerous publications to his credit.
A previous Expert Challenge Study on James Justin Abrahams'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.