Lawyers USA Online » expert witness

Pathologist can’t testify about autopsy report

Pat Murphy — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:13:31 +0000

The Confrontation Clause barred a forensic pathologist from expressing opinions regarding an autopsy that he did not perform, the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a murder conviction.

The two victims in the case were brothers who were shot while leaning into the driver’s side window of a
» Continue Reading.

Evidence of prior Ford Windstar fires inadmissible

Pat Murphy — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:17:34 +0000

A product liability plaintiff could not introduce evidence of previous electrical fires in Ford Windstar vans to show that the car manufacturer failed to adequately warn consumers of the hazard, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.

The plaintiff’s three-year-old daughter suffered fatal burns when an electrical fire
» Continue Reading.

‘Lost profits’ expert excluded in breach-of-contract case

Pat Murphy — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:32:07 +0000

An expert could not testify that a plaintiff would have been “extraordinarily successful” had the defendant not breached the parties’ contract in support of a claim for over $1 billion in “lost profits” damages, the California Supreme Court has ruled.

The plaintiff is a small dental implant company. In 1996,
» Continue Reading.

Expert improperly testified on defendant’s guilt

Pat Murphy — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:16:40 +0000

An expert witness for the prosecution should not have been permitted to testify that there was no doubt in his mind the defendant was engaged in drug trafficking, the Wyoming Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a conviction.

Police conducting surveillance of a suspected drug trafficking operation observed “short stay
» Continue Reading.

Prempro expert could testify regarding short-term use

Pat Murphy — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:16:57 +0000

Product liability plaintiffs should have been permitted to introduce expert testimony linking the short-term use of Prempro to a risk of breast cancer, the 8th Circuit has ruled in reversing a summary judgment.

The two plaintiffs in the case developed breast cancer after taking the hormone therapy drug Prempro. One
» Continue Reading.

Child abuse experts can’t testify on repressed memory

Pat Murphy — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:59:17 +0000

Experts in a child sex abuse case could not testify on repressed and recovered memory to explain the plaintiff’s delay in filing his personal injury lawsuit, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in reinstating a dismissal.

In 2006, the plaintiff sued a Catholic diocese for damages resulting from alleged sexual
» Continue Reading.

J&J’s experts improperly limited in pelvic mesh suit

Pat Murphy — Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:45:38 +0000

Johnson & Johnson should not have been barred from retaining as an expert any doctor who had treated one of the hundreds of plaintiffs in a mass tort action over pelvic mesh injuries, the New Jersey Appellate Division has ruled in
» Continue Reading.

Asbestos expert can’t advance ‘any dose’ theory

Pat Murphy — Thu, 31 May 2012 15:17:55 +0000

A plaintiff’s expert in a product liability case could not testify that each and every fiber of inhaled asbestos is a substantial contributing factor to any asbestos-related disease, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.

The plaintiff contracted mesothelioma after a 44-year career as an automobile mechanic. He
» Continue Reading.

Redefining expert witness credibility for juries

Richard Gabriel — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:53:54 +0000

Juries routinely dismiss expert testimony due to credibility problems, incomprehensibility, or simply because it is cancelled out by another expert’s testimony.

This leads to a number of important questions for the attorney and the expert in presenting testimony at trial. What
» Continue Reading.

Plaintiff must produce psychologist’s expert report

Pat Murphy — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:43:12 +0000

A plaintiff seeking damages for psychological injuries was required to produce for discovery the report of a psychologist retained for trial, in addition to the report of the psychologist who treated her, the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.

A state law governing discovery provides that a plaintiff
» Continue Reading.