Blog

Posted on February 12, 2019 by Arie George

A recent opinion of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Kopplin v. Wisconsin Central Limited, http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D02-01/C:17-3602:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2286594:S:0, is an excellent reminder that a case can fail without a well-chosen and properly prepared expert witness. 

Posted on February 7, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

As I mentioned in a previous post, almost all of the states have enacted a variety of laws that treat medical malpractice cases differently from all other torts.  “Medical malpractice reform proponents argue that tort reforms – such as limiting malpractice awards, tightening statutes of limitations for filing claims and screening cases before they go to trial – not only reduce overall medical care spending, but also increase access to care.

Posted on January 29, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

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.

Posted on January 17, 2019 by Arie George

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.

Posted on January 15, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

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.

Posted on January 10, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

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.

Posted on January 8, 2019 by Peter George

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.

Posted on January 3, 2019 by Marty Aisenberg

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

Posted on December 20, 2018 by Marty Aisenberg

Hartung Commercial Properties v. Buffi’s Automotive Equipment and Supply (Ala.

Vident
2019 © Vident Partners.