Last April I wrote about the FDA’s decision to ban the use of surgical mesh devices for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (“transvaginal mesh” or “pelvic mesh”). https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2019/fda-bans-surgical-mesh-transvaginal-repair-pelvic-organ-prolapse. Of course, because transvaginal mesh was used for that purpose for 14 years (2002-2016), the resulting litigation isn’t over yet. The most recent case to come to my attention is Kaiser v.
Dr. Stephen L. Thornton is one of our top experts specializing in emergency medicine and medical toxicology. He consistently receives the highest praise from both plaintiff and defense attorneys.
Attorneys who have never used an expert referral service may question the benefits of going that route, rather than continuing to find their own experts. Indeed, that very question has often been asked of us during our 14 years in the business. As a result (and without speaking for other referral services), we can comprehensively explain the benefits of working with our firm, Vident Partners.
Surprisingly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently split 5-4 on this seemingly noncontroversial question. The case is Strauss v.
As Peter explained in last week’s post, https://www.videntpartners.com/blog/2019/blood-alcohol-hipaa-and-4th-amendment, in addition to our longtime (nearly 15-year) healthcare expert referral practice, we provide consulting and testifying experts in all fields of specialization for all types of litigation. I thought it might be useful to list some specific examples of our expanded service. In 2018/2019 we referred, and our clients engaged, experts in the following fields (in no particular order):
Vident Partners was founded as Healthcare Litigation Support in 2005. We originally focused on providing experts for medical malpractice and other personal injury litigation. Our consulting experts and expert witnesses were specialists in medicine, pharmacology, biomedical engineering, health care administration and operations, and other healthcare-related fields. Stewart v.
The case is Ashland Hospital Corp. v. Lewis, http://opinions.kycourts.net/sc/2018-SC-000276-DG.pdf (8/29/2019). The defendant, an interventional radiologist, performed a cerebral angiogram to assist in diagnosing the cause of the plaintiff’s chronic headaches. A recovery room nurse told the defendant that the plaintiff was complaining of headache and scotoma (spots in his field of vision). These symptoms may indicate a stroke, but they also are not uncommon after a cerebral angiogram.
Historically, professional sports has not been viewed as a field rich in opportunities for litigation (Flood v. Kuhn notwithstanding). Over the past few decades, however, there has been a substantial increase sports-related litigation, which in turn has provided ample opportunities for experts to assist both plaintiffs and defendants.
As in any professional malpractice litigation, the plaintiff in a legal malpractice case must present expert opinion testimony to establish that the defendant breached the standard of care. Unlike other professional malpractice cases, however, the causation issue in a legal malpractice case – namely, whether the client would have achieved a better result if the attorney had handled the matter properly – almost always presents a question of law, and such questions are not a proper subject for expert testimony. As a federal court of appeals tartly observed, “Each courtroom comes equipped wi
I’m sure our readers will remember the multiple lawsuits filed against Ford in 2013, with attendant heavy media coverage, claiming that certain Ford vehicles were prone to unintended acceleration (UIA). The cases were consolidated in the U.S.
