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 [...]
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, [...]
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 [...]
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 [...]
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 [...]
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 [...]
By Steven Babitsky, Esq. The US District Court D. New Mexico dealt with an attempt to force the production of the expert witness’s notes in discovery. The court, citing FRCP 26(b)(4)(C) found these notes to be protected from discovery. The court stated: Rule 26(b)(4)(C) protects "communications between a party's attorney and any witness required to [...]
The U.S. District Court, W.D. Virginia dealt with a federal tort claims act case – a podiatrist, Bonk, treated the plaintiff with surgery for an injured ankle which resulted in an amputation of the leg below the knee. The U.S. hired Wirt, a registered nurse and certified life care planner to rebut the plaintiff’s physician [...]
By Steven Babitsky, Esq. The defense organization Lawyers for Civil Justice has urged that the advisory committee on evidence rules and its subcommittee on rule 702 amendments the “reform” of a Daubert Enforcement. Specifically, this powerful and influential group called for the following: We urge you to move forward with an amendment to rule 702 [...]
Steven Babitsky Esq. The United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky dealt with the plaintiff, Schall, who was in a motorcycle accident and rendered a paraplegic. Here there was a battle of life care planner experts. There was an attempt to exclude the testimony of Dr. Castillo, an assistant professor of neurosurgery PM&R Division of University [...]