Opinions

Addiction Medicine Expert Witness: What Types of Cases Might You Work On?

A discussion of the types of cases an addiction medicine expert witness may be retained to offer opinions on.

By Kelly J. Wilbur, Esq. Introduction  If you are thinking about becoming an addiction medicine expert witness you might wonder what types of cases an addiction medicine expert witness may be asked to work on.  Below are 14 examples of cases where an addiction medicine physician might be needed as an expert witness. Examples of cases where addiction medicine physicians

Expert Witness Cross-Examination – Can a Lawyer Go Too Far?

A discussion of the techniques lawyers use on expert witness cross-examination and what can happen if they go too far.

By James J. Mangraviti, Jr., Esq. Introduction – Expert Witness Cross-Examination Expert witness cross-examination can be a challenging process for the expert witness.  Trials are held in order to evaluate the credibility of witnesses.  Expert witness cross-examination is allowed in order for opposing counsel to challenge the credibility of the expert witness and the expert witness’s opinions. Expert Witness Cross-Examination

Life Care Plan: Consulting with Treating Physicians

Steven Babitsky, Esq. The United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana dealt with a slip and fall case and the life care plan of Aaron Wolfson, PhD. Dr. Wolfson spoke to the treating physicians and then sent a letter to each doctor, recording the need for future medical treatment of the plaintiff. The court held that the procedure followed by Dr.

Life Care Planner: Life Expectancy

Steven Babitsky, Esq. The United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico dealt with a motion to set aside or reduce a jury award of $12,966,000 for a child born with cerebral palsy due to medical negligence. The court upheld the verdict despite the lack of expert testimony on the issue of life expectancy. The court stated: With respect to the

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

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

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

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

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.

Daubert: Hard Hat Testing

Steven Babitsky, Esq. The U.S. District Court E.D. Louisiana dealt with the Seaman, Compton, who was hit on the head by a falling object and suffered serious injuries. The defense filed a Daubert challenge to the testimony of David Paulis, PhD, an engineering expert who was to testify as to the forces involved when a falling object hits a person.