--- title: "Radiation Oncology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Risks of Alleged Exposure" meta: "og:description": "The testimony of the radiation oncology expert was based on inferences about what the notes of other treating physicians meant" "og:title": "Radiation Oncology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Risks of Alleged Exposure" author: "Shuva Guha Thakurta" description: "The testimony of the radiation oncology expert was based on inferences about what the notes of other treating physicians meant" --- # Radiation Oncology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Risks of Alleged Exposure Posted on July 29, 2026 by Shuva Guha Thakurta Plaintiffs Shazad Buksh ("Buksh") and Krishna Gathani ("Gathani") brought this case alleging, among other causes, discrimination and retaliation by Defendants William Sarchino. Sarchino filed a motion to exclude the report and opinions of Plaintiffs' expert, [Phillip J. Beron](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Phillip-Beron/1527856), M.D. ![Radiation Oncology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Risks of Alleged Exposure](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_29T200732_639.webp) ## **Radiation Oncology Expert Witness** [Phillip Jay Beron](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Phillip-Beron/1527856), M.D. is a practicing physician licensed by the state of California and the state of Arizona" who received his M.D. from Wayne State University medical school. He completed his residency in radiation oncology at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan. He is board-certified in therapeutic radiology/radiation oncology, "which includes being tested and passing the sections on genitourinary malignancies, which includes bladder cancer." He has evaluated and treated over a thousand patients with genitourinary malignancies in his career and has been "treating most forms of cancer for approximately 27 years." [Discover more cases with Phillip Beron as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1527856&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** In this case, Beron's opinion relates to Buksh's negligence claim: Buksh alleged that Sarchino "breached the standard of ordinary care" by exposing residents (including Buksh) to dangerous levels of radiation when they were ordered to take x-rays at Sarchino's private practice "without proper protection or monitoring" and, as "a direct and proximate result of Sarchino's actions" Buksh suffers from damages "including those related to bladder cancer." Beron wishes to "opine on whether the alleged exposure to ionizing radiation harmed Buksh, including but not limited to causing bladder cancer, increasing risk of future radiation-induced cancers, increasing the risk of local/regional/distant recurrence, shortening his life, and causing a Trisomy abnormality." Defendant William Sarchino sought to exclude Beron, arguing: (1) that Beron's opinions do not meet the threshold for admissibility under [Federal Rule of Evidence 702](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702#:~:text=Rule%20702%20sets%20forth%20the,is%20a%20relatively%20narrow%20inquiry.), especially where the facts the opinion is based upon may be wrong; and (2) that, even if certain factual assumptions were reliable, Beron's report relies upon the "no safe dose" theory of causation and as such is unreliable and inadmissible. ### _Analysis_ Buksh has not explained to this Court why his expert's testimony is admissible, whereas Sarchino has convincingly argued that (1) the x-ray data that Beron based his opinion on was a self-serving, speculative estimate provided by Buksh in the face of the other x-ray data disclosed in discovery; and (2) Beron also based his opinion upon inferences about what the notes of other treating physicians meant, including a Pathology Report written at Johns Hopkins, that stated that a biopsy of a suspected tumor in Buksh's bladder had a "differential diagnosis." Beron interpreted this to mean that there was a 50/50 chance of each diagnosis, though he was not involved in the Pathology Report and he did not appear to have personally examined Buksh or any tissue samples from Buksh. Again, Buksh has provided no response to these issues. Accordingly, in the face of these discrepancies, the Court finds that Beron's opinion is not based upon sufficient facts or data (x-ray numbers), nor is it the product of reliable principles and methods (Beron's interpretation of treatment records). Beron's opinion must then be excluded. The Court does not reach Sarchino's argument that the "no safe dose" theory of specific causation is unreliable. ## **Held** The Court granted Sarchino's motion to exclude the expert report and opinions of Philip Beron. ## **Key Takeaway:** The proponent of the expert testimony bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the admissibility requirements of Rule 702 are satisfied. Please refer to the blog previously published about this case: [Economics Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Income Losses](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/economics-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-income-losses) ## **Case Details:** | Case Caption: | Buksh V. Sarchino | | --- | --- | | Docket Number: | 2:21cv190 | | Court Name: | United States District Court, Vermont | | Order Date: | July 08, 2026 | --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Radiation Oncology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Risks of Alleged Exposure](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_29T200732_639.webp) [**Radiation Oncology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Risks of Alleged Exposure**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/radiation-oncology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-risks-of-alleged-exposure/radiation-oncology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-risks-of-alleged-exposure)![Sexual Abuse Expert Allowed to Opine on Culpability](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_29T180748_5521.webp) [**Sexual Abuse Expert Allowed to Opine on Culpability**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/radiation-oncology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-risks-of-alleged-exposure/sexual-abuse-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-culpability)![Transportation Safety Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Non-Preventability of the Crash](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_28T202402_4131.webp) [**Transportation Safety Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Non-Preventability of the Crash**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/radiation-oncology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-risks-of-alleged-exposure/transportation-safety-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-non-preventability-of-the-crash)![Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Toy Sales](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_28T170323_8161.webp) [**Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Toy Sales**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/radiation-oncology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-risks-of-alleged-exposure/economics-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-toy-sales)![Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Hail Impacts](https://media.jurimatic.com/images/blog_pic_640X480_2026_07_28T175252_204.webp) [**Mechanical Engineering Expert Allowed to Opine on Hail Impacts**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/radiation-oncology-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-risks-of-alleged-exposure/mechanical-engineering-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-hail-impacts)