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 →

Vermont Court limits executive search and recruitment expert’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s job qualifications and associated compensation range

Although Ketchum is qualified as an expert based on his extensive professional experience in executive recruiting, portions of his opinions were excluded as unreliable under Rule 702. His opinion on Wolfe’s probable compensation range relied solely on limited data points regarding Wolfe’s prior salary and his successor’s pay without explaining his reasoning. Ketchum’s opinion that Wolfe’s job search efforts were reasonable was an inadmissible legal conclusion. His media research opinion failed to provide an admissible causation analysis and ignored unfavorable evidence. Despite Ketchum’s qualifications, his methodology was inadequate regarding these opinions, warranting exclusion under Rule 702.

Read More →

Court admits royalty analysis on a convoyed sales approach, denied motion to exclude in Patent Infringement case

In this patent infringement lawsuit, the Court addressed Defendant’s motion to exclude Plaintiff’s damages expert under Daubert and Rule 702. The Defendant argued the expert improperly inflated the value of the patented inventions by including non-infringing products and features in his royalty calculations. However, the Court upheld the expert’s methodology. It found the expert permissibly based his royalty analysis on a convoyed sales approach, including revenue from non-patented maintenance packages that were functionally linked to the accused software. The Court explained convoyed sales principles allow tying non-patented items to patented ones when a close functional relationship exists, without meeting the same stringent standards as the entire market value rule urged by defendant. The Court also affirmed the expert’s apportionment methodology as sufficiently reliable and rejected arguments he failed to account for prior art. It emphasized alleged flaws in an expert’s methodology are better handled by cross-examination rather than exclusion.

The key focus is on summarizing the court’s decision to allow the expert’s testimony over Defendant’s Daubert challenge. The excerpt highlights the court’s findings that the expert reliably applied accepted damages principles and Defendant’s disputes could be addressed through cross-examination at trial.

Read More →

Texas Court admits medical expert testimony in prenatal care medical malpractice case 

Discover the intricacies of expert witness testimony admissibility in a medical malpractice case. Explore how qualifications, relevance, and reliability of experts play a pivotal role in legal proceedings. Delve into the Daubert standard and the key takeaways from a recent case involving medical experts in obstetrics, gynecology, and pediatrics.

Read More →

Arizona District Court finds Railroad expert witness testimony inadmissible in wrongful termination suit; dismisses case 

Exclusion of railroad expert witness under Daubert in wrongful termination suit.

Matthew Thomas, a former BNSF Railway engineer, ignites a legal storm. Alleging retaliatory termination due to whistleblower status, he reports BNSF’s violations to the Federal Railroad Administration. BNSF counters, attributing damages to Thomas in a train derailment. Learn more about why the Plaintiff’s railroad expert witnesses were excluded in spite of being qualified.

#WhistleblowerProtection #RailRoadExperts #ExpertWitness

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!