Expert Fire Investigator’s testimony determining the point of origin and cause of the fire found reliable

The Court denied a Daubert motion to exclude a fire investigator’s testimony on the origin and cause of a destructive fire. It found the investigator qualified through extensive experience investigating fires. Minor flaws in his analysis provided fodder for cross-examination but did not warrant exclusion. Competing expert conclusions created a battle of the experts for the jury to resolve at trial, not grounds to exclude testimony under Daubert, the court held.

Read More →

Court admits image valuation and consumer perception theories with regard to the model and talent industry provided by the Plaintiff’s experts in copyright infringement suit

Wisconsin District Court denied a motion to exclude the Plaintiffs’ expert who used his industry experience to opine on hypothetical negotiation value. The court found his valuation method reliable enough for admission, despite the Defendant’s critiques. It also permitted the Plaintiffs’ survey expert, ruling that flaws in the survey went to evidentiary weight, not admissibility. The Court screens expert testimony for relevance and reliability under Rule 702, not perfection.

Read More →

Court excludes unreliable pharmacology and neurology expert opinions in product liability case; grants summary judgment

In a lawsuit against Vitamin Shoppe, a man alleged its vitamin supplements containing arsenic and lead caused his peripheral neuropathy. He relied on his treating neurologist and a pharmacist to provide expert opinions on causation. The court excluded both experts, finding their methodologies failed to reliably account for the dosage of toxins consumed. Without admissible expert testimony on causation, the man could not withstand Vitamin Shoppe’s motion for summary judgment. The court granted judgment in Vitamin Shoppe’s favor on all claims.

Read More →

Court admitted the valuation expert reports presented by both parties in this case involving the termination of a wine distributorship agreement 

In a wine distribution lawsuit, the court denied motions by both parties to exclude expert witness testimony. The court found most issues went to the weight of the evidence rather than admissibility. Citing the less stringent Daubert standard in a bench trial, the court expressed confidence in its ability to properly weigh even questionable expert opinions based on the trial evidence. The court deferred key methodological challenges until trial.

Read More →

Court limits treating physician’s testimony pertaining to issues concerning the Plaintiff’s treatment 

This case demonstrates the court’s “gatekeeping” role in assessing reliability of expert testimony under Daubert and excluding opinions outside an expert’s direct knowledge and treatment. The decision provides guidance on constraining expert witness testimony to matters firmly within the bounds of the expert’s qualifications and experience.

Read More →

Multiple expert challenges in case involving recreational vehicle explosion leading to critical injuries

The plaintiffs challenged the defense experts on multiple fronts. They moved to preclude certain testimony of James J. Keough, Jr. regarding the RV design and accident, arguing his opinions lacked sufficient basis and methodology. But the court found Keough relied on extensive materials and technical experience, applying a reliable methodology. It emphasized vigorous cross-examination, not exclusion, was the way to address shaky expert opinions. Additionally, the plaintiffs moved to preclude opinions on medical expenses by the defense’s expert Henry Miller. Here the court partially agreed, barring testimony comparing hospital rates for unrelated conditions as insufficiently relevant and reliable. But it otherwise denied the motion, allowing Miller’s testimony on factors influencing reasonable medical expenses.

The defendants, on the other hand, sought to limit testimony on fire cause and origin by Plaintiff’s expert, Mark Sutherland. But again the court ruled that disagreements over an expert’s conclusions did not warrant exclusion if the methodology was fundamentally sound. It denied the motion, finding Sutherland properly relied on accident facts using established fire investigation techniques.

Read More →

Court excludes the unsubstantiated testimony of labor standards expert witness on account of non-compliance with the disclosure requirements of Rule 26

The Court excluded the Plaintiffs’ expert witness report in this fair labor standards act case for noncompliance with Rule 26 requirements. The report lacked a detailed explanation of the expert’s methodology and opinions. It relied on facts not yet available through discovery. Further, it failed to identify supporting exhibits or provide the expert’s qualifications and publications. With no insight into the validity of the expert’s analysis, and given a prior chance to amend, the Court found exclusion necessary under Daubert. Compliance with disclosure rules is key.

Read More →

Orthopedic expert testimony on causation survives unreliable methodology challenge in Louisiana

The District Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert Dr. Millet. Though Dr. Millet did not examine the Plaintiff and made some factual assumptions, the Court found his methodology of reviewing medical records combined with his experience was sufficiently reliable under Daubert. The Court held disputes over the basis for an expert’s opinion should affect the weight assigned, not admissibility. Shaky but admissible testimony should be attacked through cross-examination and contrary evidence, not exclusion.

Read More →

Unreliable testimony by metrology and food safety expert excluded in class action for false and deceptive advertising

In this class action, the court excluded expert testimony alleging Laird Superfood mislabeled serving sizes on its products. The court found the expert’s consumer-perspective testing methodology lacked scientific reliability controls and details. His opinions were also irrelevant to whether Laird followed FDA labeling rules. Without the expert testimony, the plaintiff could not prove Laird violated labeling regulations. This resulted in dismissal, underscoring the importance of admissible expert evidence in such cases.

Read More →

Nebraska Court Partly Admits Employment Attorney’s Expert Testimony  

Legal case illustration depicting the complexities of employment discrimination claims, expert testimony, and legal conclusions.

Plaintiff Terrence T. Batiste II alleges wrongful termination and discrimination. Defendant Titan Medical Group LLC’s expert witness testimony by Timothy D. Loudon is under scrutiny. Court’s decision balances expertise, methodology, and admissibility of testimony. Legal insight into the ongoing case dynamics.

Read More →
  • Recent Expert Challenges

    Expert Challenges, Fire Investigation Expert Witness

    Expert Fire Investigator’s testimony determining the point of origin and cause of the fire found reliable

    September 29, 2023

    Accident Reconstruction Expert Witness, Expert Challenges

    Court limits expert testimony on crash reconstruction and its contributing factors

    September 28, 2023

  • Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
    Your subscription has been successful.

    Stay on top of expert witness law and research updates!

    Subscribe to our newsletter and receive weekly updates right in your inbox!