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 →

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 →

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 →

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 expert testimony regarding restrictive covenants in public nuisance case

In Stone v. Harley Marine, the court denied Harley’s attempt to exclude Plaintiff’s expert, finding his long experience preparing neighborhood analyses qualified him to opine on land use and deed restrictions. The court held that the expert employed a reliable methodology involving site inspection and document review. While Harley could make specific objections at trial, the court found the expert’s experience analyzing neighborhoods as a real estate appraiser qualified him to serve as a rebuttal witness despite lacking formal credentials as a land planner. The court also declined to limit Plaintiff’s testimony about her property value since she agreed to comply with the Texas Property Owner Rule.

Read More →

FTX Founder’s Experts Face Exclusion in Cryptocurrency Fraud Case

The upcoming fraud trial of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried recently faced a major development regarding expert witnesses. Federal prosecutors filed motions to completely exclude all seven expert witnesses noticed by Bankman-Fried’s defense team. The Government argues the testimony of experts including a barrister, professors, and industry professionals would be irrelevant, unreliable, confusing, or prejudicial. Specifically, prosecutors say the witnesses improperly intend to offer legal conclusions that are the court’s purview, speculate about Bankman-Fried’s intent, provide unnecessary background, or discuss industry practices unrelated to the allegations. Authorities also contend some experts lack qualifications to opine on cryptocurrency and FTX, while others failed to adequately disclose their opinions and analysis as required. The prosecution’s motions aim to block expert testimony that they say either usurps the roles of the judge and jury, lacks a scientific basis, or seeks to distract from the core issues of alleged fraud, misappropriation, and false statements. The court has not yet ruled on whether to exclude the defense experts. Jury selection for Bankman-Fried’s New York trial on charges tied to FTX’s collapse begins October 2.

Read More →

Nebraska Court excludes Employment Law Expert’s testimony in Employment Discrimination suit 

Plaintiff, Amanda Benson offered the testimony of Dr. Christiane Tellefsen, a forensic psychiatry expert and Amy Oppenheimer, an employment law expert to substantiate it’s claims of employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against the Defendant, City of Lincoln. When City of Lincoln filed Daubert motions against both experts, the Court admitted the testimony of Dr. Christiane Tellefsen despite allegations of the testimony being based on an unreliable methodology but excluded the testimony of Amy Oppenheimer because it consisted of legal conclusions.

#WrongfulTermination #DaubertMotion #ForensicPsychiatryExpert #EmploymentLawExpert

Read More →

Kentucky Court excludes testimony of Gender Equity Expert on Title IX Violations Case 

Plaintiffs vs. University of Kentucky: Exclusion of Expert Testimony on Title IX Violations

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Niblock and Meredith Newman alleged Title IX violations against the University of Kentucky. The testimony of Expert witness Donna Lopiano’s testimony in support of the allegations was challenged by the University of Kentucky. Key issues include Lopiano’s legal conclusions, reliability of her analysis, and her qualification to opine on certain matters. The court’s ruling excludes Lopiano’s testimony, stressing the importance of avoiding legal conclusions, ensuring a reliable methodological basis and emphasized on experts opining within the confines of their expertise. The outcome of the case is still pending.

Read More →
  • Recent Expert Challenges

    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!