Expert Witness Blog

Blog

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

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.

July 6, 2020

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.

July 2, 2020

Daubert: Applies to Bench Trials

The U.S. District Court of Appeals (3rd Cir) dealt with a condemnation proceeding under the Natural Gas Act. The court took this opportunity to clarify that Daubert does in fact apply in bench trials. The court stated: We start with a clarification about the role Rule 702 plays in bench trials. As we have explained, “a trial judge acts as

June 29, 2020

Daubert Challenge: Common Sense Expert Opinion

Steven Babitsky, Esq. The U.S. District Court of Appeals (3rd Cir) dealt with a Daubert Challenge to expert testimony in a condemnation proceeding. The court found that admitting the testimony was in error despite the fact that it was a bench trial. The court found the testimony was unreliable and stated: Take the reports. They lack any suggestion that the

June 24, 2020

Expert Witnesses Need to Warm Up in the Bullpen

Steven Babitsky, Esq. I was speaking with an expert witness and he described his problem at deposition: “I do very well generally at my depositions. I am well-prepared, know my stuff, and have experience. The problem is it takes me 20-30 minutes to warm up during my deposition, so in the beginning of them I do not usually do well.”

May 19, 2020

Controlling the Expert Witness During Cross Examination

One of the most important techniques trial lawyers are taught is how to control the expert witness during cross-examination. Attorney Phillip H. Miller explains this strategy: Cross-examination is not about a witness testifying; it is about the lawyer eliciting the desired testimony from the witness. Control the witness. If you feel you are not in strict control, follow the first

April 17, 2020

Expert Medical Testimony: General Acceptance Not Required

Steven Babitsky, Esq. The court of appeals of Oregon dealt with Plaintiff, Miller, who was in a minor accident and later alleged fibromyalgia as a result of the accident. The court excluded the plaintiff’s medical experts who were to testify as to causation. The court found that although there was no general medical acceptance of the relationship between trauma and