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.
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):
