I have been following this litigation for several months. (See my previous posts at https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6407989287274455040/, https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6410206962260144128/, and https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6435163112038629376/.) There are 10,600
In response to skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums in the 1970s and 80s, states began enacting a variety of “tort reform” laws that treat medical malpractice differently from all other torts.
In December 2018, two different courts issued opinions in favor of Apple in personal injury/wrongful death suits. The first is Modisette v. Apple Inc. (https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Modisette.pdf), from the Court of Appeal of the State of California; the second is Meador v. Apple Inc. (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40968-CV0.pdf), from the U.S.
Here’s a timely reminder that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (the basis of the Supreme Court’s famous Daubert decision) imposes a four-part test. For expert opinion testimony to be admissible, the fact that the expert has “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” [Fed. R. Evid. 702(a)] is necessary, but not sufficient.
620 cases claiming that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer) causes cancer are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
As an expert witness referral service, we provide experts in all fields of specialization for all types of litigation. One of the core areas of litigation that we are involved with is medical malpractice.
An important question in medical malpractice cases is whether the plaintiff’s standard of care expert must be board certified in the same specialty as the defendant, or must at least practice in the same area of specialization without board certification. Many states have enacted controlling statutes on this issue. If the answer to the “same specialty” question is yes, the plaintiff frequently needs two experts – one to opine on the standard of care, and one to address causation. In a 2018 case, the South Carolina Supreme Court carefully construed the relevant statute and held that, unde
Hartung Commercial Properties v. Buffi’s Automotive Equipment and Supply (Ala.
The U.S.
The case is Smith v. Chrysler Group (5th Cir. 11/26/2018), http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40901-CV0.pdf. The opinion concisely summarizes the facts as follows:
