Results for: Joshua Michael Ammerman

Joshua Michael Ammerman

Neurosurgery

Washington, District of Columbia

If you're not satisfied,
we don't expect you to pay.

That's our commitment and your guarantee. Simply ask for a refund.

Expert Details

Dr. Joshua Michael Ammerman, M.D. is a neurosurgery expert witness from District of Columbia. He has active medical practitioner’s licenses from the states of Maryland, Florida and District of Columbia. He is also certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery. He completed his B.S. in Biology in the year 1996 from the Emory University at Atlanta, Georgia and then earned his Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) in 2000 from the George Washington University at Washington, DC. He also completed internship from the George Washington University Medical Center and then completed his residency from the George Washington University Medical Center and the Department of Neurological Surgery, Children's National Medical Center. He further completed fellowship in 2004 from the National Institutes of Health at Bethesda, Maryland. Currently, Dr. Ammerman is the Chairman of Department of Surgery at the Sibley Memorial Hospital. He also serves as the assistant clinical professor of neurosurgery at the George Washington University School of Medicine and an adjunct assistant professor of neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. He also has several publications to his credit. He resides at District of Columbia.
A previous Expert Challenge Study on Joshua Michael Ammerman's revealed:
Total Challenges 7
Direct Challenges 3
Indirect Challenges 4

Preliminary Screening Report

The Preliminary Screening Report (PSR) gives you both a snapshot of an expert's testimonial history and an accurate assessment of how prolific a testifier that expert has been in the past. Most importantly, it is a tool to help you determine if there is enough information available regarding the expert to justify the investment in a full Expert Witness Profile.

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
  • Dockets
  • Federal Agency Decisions
  • Jury Verdict Reports
  • Motions
  • Pleadings
  • Briefs
  • Orders
  • Opinions
  • 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

Learn about cases where an expert has been challenged under Daubert or their testimony has been criticized by the judge or the opposing party. See the grounds for such challenges, their outcomes (where available) and citations to underlying documents. The Challenge Study includes direct challenges to experts as well as instances where the expert's testimony/ affidavit was submitted in support or against a motion.

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.

Expert Witness Profile

10 business days - $495.00
The Expert Witness Profile is the most comprehensive and cost-effective background report on an expert witness in the United States today. The product is used by lawyers, law librarians and paralegals practicing in every area of law and by the widest array of organizations: from AMLAW 100 law firms to sole practitioners to national associations of attorneys to expert search firms and even by expert witnesses themselves.