--- title: "Neurology Expert’s Legal Theories Excluded" meta: "og:description": "The neurology expert was barred from advancing theories of deliberate indifference or conscious disregard" "og:title": "Neurology Expert’s Legal Theories Excluded" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The neurology expert was barred from advancing theories of deliberate indifference or conscious disregard" --- # Neurology Expert’s Legal Theories Excluded Posted on May 4, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler J. M. was diagnosed with epilepsy in sixth grade. His condition was treated with multiple medications, but he continued to have breakthrough seizures. Sam’s Law (HB 684) requires all Texas public school personnel to be trained in the recognition of seizures and providing seizure first aid. On August 24, 2022, J. M. had a seizure while running on the school’s track. The school called his mother Apryl Mendoza to notify her that J. M. was seizing and that emergency medical services were in route. Apryl called Gabriel Mendoza, and when he arrived at the scene, J. M. had been seizing for approximately seventeen minutes and had not received his prescribed dose of nasal midazolam. Emergency medical personnel arrived and began performing CPR on J. M. before transporting him to the hospital. He died the following day at the age of fourteen. In this disability discrimination case, Plaintiffs sought to recover for injuries allegedly resulting from the prolonged seizure of fourteen-year-old J.M. while he was at school, and who later died as a result. Defendant is the school district where the alleged events took place. Defendant filed three motions to exclude Plaintiffs’ retained experts Dr. [Dave Shahani](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Dave-Shahani/1573487), Ms. [Monica Porras](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Monica-Porras/1573488), and Dr. [Francis Sheboy](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Francis%20%E2%80%9CFrank%E2%80%9D-Sheboy/1573489). ## **Neurology Expert Witness** Dr. [Dave Naresh Shahani](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Dave-Shahani/1573487) is a licensed and practicing physician, board-certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology with special qualification in Child Neurology and Epilepsy. His practice is focused on the diagnosis and management of children and adolescents with neurologic conditions and intractable epilepsy. [Discover more cases with Dave Shahani as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1573487&pId=3). ## **Nursing Expert Witness** [Monica Porras](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Monica-Porras/1573488), MSN, RN, NCSN has been an active licensed nurse since 2006 and specializes in pediatrics with a focus in school nursing. She has served as a school nurse for the last 9 years of her career. She is a Nationally Certified School Nurse. [Want to know more about the challenges Monica Porras has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1573488&pId=3). ## **Education Expert Witness** [Francis N. Sheboy](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Francis%20%E2%80%9CFrank%E2%80%9D-Sheboy/1573489) has 33 years of professional experience in public education. As an educator, she served as a high school social studies teacher; high school assistant principal and principal; assistant superintendent for curriculum, instruction, personnel, and technology; and superintendent of schools. His educational background included a bachelor’s degree in social studies education, a master’s degree in social studies education, a certificate program in educational administration with a focus on supervision and evaluation, and a doctoral degree in educational leadership, management, and policy from Seton Hall University in South Orange, New Jersey. [Get the full story on challenges to Francis Sheboy’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1573489&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### **Dave Shahani** Defendant argued that Shahani’s November 2025 expert report “transforms previously uncertain factual points into definitive assertions,” and introduced “legal theories of ‘intentional discrimination’ and ‘deliberate indifference'” that were not in his previous June 2024 report. The Court agreed with Defendant that these are legal conclusions and should be excluded as irrelevant and unhelpful to the trier of fact. Defendant also asserted that Shahani’s discussion of Sam’s Law, found in both the June 2024 and November 2025 reports, should be excluded because “whether school personnel complied with statutory training requirements or internal policies is a legal and factual question for the Court and jury.” Shahani may discuss Sam’s Law in the context of his medical expertise, and may provide his opinion as to the facts of the case within that context. This includes how the law might relate to his testimony regarding the guidelines set out by the American Epilepsy Society or J. M.’s seizure action plan. However, Shahani cannot testify that “[J. M.] was not treated per the standard of care outlines by Sam’s Law.” First, because this is an impermissible legal conclusion, and second, because Defendant is correct that Sam’s Law does not provide a standard of care, such testimony would confuse and mislead the jury. ### **Monica Porras** Defendant also moved to exclude the testimony of Monica Porras, arguing that Porras’ testimony ‘substitutes legal conclusions and advocacy for expert analysis” and would “improperly instruct the jury on the law.” Porras’ November 2, 2025 report included testimony that a “knowing refusal to administer medication” constitutes “intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference under Title II of the ADA.” She then concluded that J. M. was “denied an ADA-protected accommodation” and “died as a result.” The Court agreed with the Plaintiffs that experts can opine as to industry standards and discuss whether conduct is consistent with those standards. As a result, testimony that a “knowing refusal to administer medication” constitutes “intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference under Title II of the ADA,” that J. M. was “denied an ADA-protected accommodation,” or any similar legal conclusions relating to the ADA was excluded. However, the Court refused to exclude testimony simply because it mentions the ADA within the context of Porras’ discussion of industry customs or practices related to her experience as a school nurse. ### **Francis Sheboy** Defendant moved to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Francis Sheboy because he “purports to offer opinions regarding the school’s compliance with federal disability laws and its alleged deliberate indifference.” Experts cannot offer legal conclusions in their testimony. As a result, any testimony by Sheboy containing legal conclusions, such as above, will be excluded. Defendant also argued that Sheboy should not be able to opine as to J. M.’s disability status and eligibility under the ADA because he is not a medical doctor. Although Sheboy may discuss J. M.’s condition within the context of his experience in education administration, the Court held that statements like J. M.’s epilepsy and accompanying seizures “clearly constituted qualifying impairments that substantially limited major life activities” and “entitled him to protections under federal disability law” are legal conclusions that must be excluded. ## **Held** The Court agreed with Defendant that portions of each challenged expert’s testimony contain impermissible legal conclusions, are irrelevant, and risk confusing the jury. However, the Court also agreed with Plaintiffs that the appropriate remedy is limitation, not wholesale exclusion of the witnesses. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motions insofar as Plaintiffs’ experts will not be permitted to include any legal conclusions in their testimony, as explained above. This includes any testimony that states or applies ADA legal standards, or otherwise uses legal labels such as “deliberate indifference” or “intentional discrimination.” The Court denied Defendant’s motions to the extent they sought to exclude Plaintiffs’ experts and their opinions in their entirety. ## **Key Takeaway** Qualified experts are permitted to offer opinion testimony as to industry standards or norms and whether or not they were followed in a particular case, as long as such opinions involves questions of fact rather than purely legal matters. This could include the discussion of statutes, such as the ADA, in relation to how they relate to industry standards or practices, but cannot include legal conclusions relating to those statutes. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Neurology Expert's Legal Theories Excluded](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-pic-640X480.jpg) [**Neurology Expert’s Legal Theories Excluded**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/neurology-experts-legal-theories-excluded/neurology-experts-legal-theories-excluded)![Transportation Expert Allowed to Opine on Aluminum Loading](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/blog-pic-640X480-2026-05-01T161455.855.jpg) [**Transportation Expert Allowed to Opine on Aluminum Loading**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/neurology-experts-legal-theories-excluded/transportation-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-aluminum-loading)![Construction Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Project Delays](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-30T212052.222.jpg) [**Construction Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Project Delays**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/neurology-experts-legal-theories-excluded/construction-management-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-project-delays)![Railroad Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Hand Brake](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-30T200224.043.jpg) [**Railroad Expert Was Not Allowed to Opine on Hand Brake**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/neurology-experts-legal-theories-excluded/railroad-expert-was-not-allowed-to-opine-on-hand-brake)![Forensic Accounting Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Household Services](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-30T180651.514.jpg) [**Forensic Accounting Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Household Services**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/neurology-experts-legal-theories-excluded/forensic-accounting-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-household-services)