Expert Witness Blog

Practical guidance for expert witnesses — testimony, report writing, depositions, fees and building a successful practice.

December 8, 2020

What Expert Witnesses Can Do When Opposing Counsel Takes Material Out of Context

Steven Babitsky, Esq. Counsel may, during cross-examination of an expert witness, take a statement out of context before the jury. The expert needs to be ready to take advantage of this opportunity. Here is how three expert witnesses explained how they effectively dealt with their opportunity. 1. “The defense attorney asked me to comment on the opinion of defense’s medical

December 8, 2020

Expert Witnesses Strike Back

Steven Babitsky, Esq. Experienced expert witnesses can and do selectively strike back against opposing counsel during their cross-examination. Here is how some expert witnesses described their experiences. 1. “Q: Doctor, when you take a medical history, are there specific techniques you use to get the answer you want out of a patient? A: I did not go to law school,

November 27, 2020

Courts Employing Virtual Litigation

Steven Babitsky, Esq. State and federal courts are encouraging and, in some cases, requiring litigants to proceed with virtual litigation. Hearings In Madonna Ciccone v. One West 64th Street Inc., the Supreme court New York County 6514748/2016 9/4/2020, the court required, due to Covid-19, that a fee hearing must go forward by videoconference. Bench Trials In Flores v. Town of

November 5, 2020

Virtual Bench Trial Approved

The U.S. District Court E.D. New York dealt with a request for a virtual bench trial in a voting rights act case. The court granted the request for the virtual bench trial and stated: In terms of good cause, plaintiffs argue that “COVID-19 creates perhaps the most compelling circumstances in history in favor of conducting this trial remotely.” DE 188

November 5, 2020

Independent Medical Exam: Virtually or Less Remote

The U.S. District Court D. New Mexico dealt with the plaintiff who was in an automobile accident. The plaintiff was travelling in New Mexico at the time of the accident but lives in Kentucky. The defendant sought to have the plaintiff, who has Multiple Sclerosis, travel back to New Mexico for the IME. The court rejected this request, due to

October 7, 2020

Introverts Make Excellent Expert Witnesses

Steven Babitsky Esq. One of the biggest misconceptions about who can become an effective expert witness is that you need to be an extrovert to do this well. Over the course of my career I have talked to hundreds of experts in all fields who essentially said the same thing: “I am an introvert and probably not cut out to

October 5, 2020

Life Care Planner: Methodology

The U.S. District Court (E.D Missouri) dealt with the plaintiff, Bayes, who sued a biomedical company, Biomet, for a defective hip implant. The defense sought to exclude the life care planner, Corwin, who is ACRC and a certified life care planner. The court denied the motion to exclude, stating that the methodology was sufficiently reliable. The court stated: The Court

October 2, 2020

Expert Witness Fees: Working for Multiple Attorneys

Steven Babitsky, Esq. Expert witnesses may find themselves working on a case for multiple attorneys who have the same client or clients with similar interests. In these cases, the attorneys may propose that they ‘share’ paying the expert for their services. The expert should seriously consider rejecting this proposal for the following reasons: Assuming that you have an employment contract

September 16, 2020

Experts Check Your Website!

Steven Babitsky, Esq. Expert witnesses should check their own websites at least once per week to make sure that it is functioning properly. Recently, I was working with an expert witness client and asked him to visit the site of another client’s website. I was going to demonstrate what a good website looked like. I went to the website and

July 17, 2020

Expert Witness: Credibility of Witnesses

Steven Babitsky, Esq. The U.S. District Court (Alaska) dealt with a professor, Bloom, who proposed testifying “about incentives for snitches and cooperating witnesses . . . to aid the jury by giving a thorough background that they may determine the credibility of cooperating witnesses.” The court relied on Black Letter Law and held he would not be permitted to testifying.