As every trial lawyer knows, the admissibility of a vast array of evidence is committed to the trial court’s discretion. (Or “sound discretion,” as some appellate courts put it, though as far as I can tell it means the same thing.) Consequently, one of the unavoidably nerve-wracking aspects of litigation is that Judge A and Judge B might reach opposite conclusions on the admissibility of the same evidence, yet both rulings could be upheld on appeal because neither ruling was an abuse of discretion. So, without in any way denigrating the importance of our skill and experience in trial adv
One of our clients has a term for unusual or hard-to-find experts – he calls them “pink unicorns.” We became aware of this phenomenon some years ago, even before we learned that felicitous phrase, when a plaintiff’s attorney needed a dermatology expert for a complex case adverse to one of the most prominent and highly-regarded dermatologists in the United States. Dozens of experts refused the case before we found a well-qualified dermatologist (not a “professional expert”) who was willing to review it. The client was ecstatic, and obviously we were gratified to accomplish what he had be
Rule 702 of the Minnesota Rules Evidence provides that “[an expert’s] opinion must have foundational reliability.” This is the functional equivalent of Fed. R. Evid.
There is a split in the circuits on the important question of whether a medical opinion can be false within the meaning of the False Claims Act (FCA).
Yes, Vident Partners is still open for business and actually functioning quite well.
During the course of our nearly 15 years in the business, we’ve provided attorneys with consulting and testifying experts in over a hundred fields of expertise for many different types of litigation. From time to time a particular litigation area gets “hot,” which leads to attorneys requesting experts in particular specialties for an unusually high number of cases. For example, there was a period of about 3 years a while back when we provided experts for dozens of asbestos cases.
Appellate opinions usually begin with a very short introductory paragraph – just enough to orient the reader to the nature of the case and the outcome of the appeal. Here’s a typical example:
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.
