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 [...]
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 [...]
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 [...]
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 [...]
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. 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 [...]
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 [...]
Steven Babitsky, Esq. How do trial attorneys attack psychologists and psychiatrists during cross-examination? They are being trained to concentrate on the expert’s competence and methodology. Attorney Renee Welze Livingston writes in the January 2020 issue of For the Defense: How Methodical Investigation Can Cast Doubt on a Psychological Expert’s Competence and Methodology. This revealing article [...]
The U.S, District court S.D. Florida dealt with the issue of whether fee arrangements between an expert witness and counsel must be disclosed during discovery. The expert was a loss consultant and was provided with a 10% prelitigation fee for his services. The court ordered the production of the agreement and stated: First, the Court [...]