When we started in business in 2004, the primary sources for locating experts were listservs and personal recommendations from other attorneys. The Internet, already a notable source back then (Google went public in 2003), soon became the primary way to search for experts, while listservs essentially disappeared.
I trust no reader of our blog needs a summary of this well-known (not to say notorious) case. The indictment was handed down on August 14, 2023; trial is scheduled to begin on October 3, 2023. On August 16, the defendant disclosed seven proposed expert witnesses.
In North Shore Medical Center v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co. (11th Cir., No. 22-10514, 5/25/2023), the court held that the plaintiff’s expert’s report created a triable issue of material fact, and consequently the district court should not have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In a concurring opinion, a member of the panel pointed out that one section of the defendant’s expert’s report supported the plaintiff’s position on the triable issue and hence was an independent reason for denying summary judgment.
Toxicology is the study of the adverse effects of chemical substances on living organisms, including humans. Toxicologists investigate the mechanisms of toxic effects, evaluate the risks and benefits of chemical exposures, and develop strategies to minimize harmful effects. There are two categories of toxicologists: medical (MD) toxicologists and PhD toxicologists. They share some common areas of expertise, but there are significant differences in their training, responsibilities and career paths.
Frankel v. Deane (Md. 8/25/2022), https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2022/43a21.pdf, illustrates the legal issue that is the title of this post. It also illustrates what is technically a legal issue (a trial court’s abuse of discretion in excluding expert medical testimony), but is actually a practical issue that every trial lawyer has to deal with sooner or later, even multiple times in the course of a long career: the nightmare trial judge. I will discuss the legal issue first.
This is an obstetrical malpractice case. A caesarean section was delayed for several hours due to the negligence of both the treating physicians and the nurses, as result of which the baby sustained significant hypoxic brain damage during labor and was born with cerebral palsy. The plaintiff mother, suing on behalf of her child, settled with the physicians and proceeded to trial against the hospital that employed the nurses. Rodriguez-Valentin v. Doctors’ Center Hospital, No. 20-2093 (1st Cir.
Back in the Before Time, one of my clients decided that the personal presence of expert witnesses in the courtroom was rarely necessary and hence rarely worth the expense. He used to fly around the country taking video depositions of experts for trial testimony purposes, typically scheduling two, three, or even four such depositions in the course of one trip. He was perfectly comfortable presenting expert testimony to juries on a screen. Perhaps, unbeknownst to my client, his method was a harbinger of things to come. Because from March 2020 to the present, as far as I know, no expert ha
Your response to that title is “Tell me something I don’t know,” right? This is black-letter law! Unfortunately, as every litigator knows, sometimes trial judges make decisions that are simply incomprehensible – decisions that fly in the face of well-known legal principles. Fortunately, appellate courts (usually) set things right.
When I was a practicing trial lawyer, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away (okay, so it was actually Rhode Island), our state supreme court recognized lack of informed consent as a basis for liability in medical malpractice cases. In doing so, it held that the risks that must be disclosed are those that a reasonable patient would have considered in deciding whether or not to undergo the procedure in question. Of course, expert testimony is necessary to establish what all of the material risks (disclosed and undisclosed) of the procedure are, what the alternative treatments are, etc.
