Fact Witnesses Cannot Give Expert Opinions

Evidence/Expert Testimony Bookmark and Share
February 8, 2012

The title of this post makes the 7th Circuit's recent decision in Tribble v. Evangelides, ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. 2012), Cause No. 10-3262, sound almost prosaic. However, all is not what it appears to be. What actually happened in this case is quite interesting.
Lessons:
  1. Broad generalizations and abstract conclusions are examples of opinion testimony.
  2. An opinion is not a lay opinion if an untrained layman could not make if perceiving the same acts or events.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
top

Non-Doctors Can Give Expert Opinions on Medical Causation

Evidence/Expert Testimony Bookmark and Share
February 5, 2012

Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court decided a pair of cases using the same principal; a non-medical expert can give an opinion on medical causation. While the Court's decisions in Bennett v. Richmond, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2012), and Person v. Shipley, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2012), support this principal, they do not describe the scope of this principal, leaving those answers to further litigation.
Lessons:
  1. A trial court may allow non-medical experts to give opinions on medical causation if the expert otherwise meets the qualifications of Evid. R. 702.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
top

Testimony Regarding a Doctor Should Have Performed an Operation Does Not Address Whether That Operation Was Performed Negligently

Evidence/Expert Testimony Bookmark and Share
December 7, 2011

A medical review panel unanimously found that a doctor did not have proper training to perform a particular surgery on a patient. Is this be sufficient to get the plaintiff past summary judgment in a medical malpractice case? In Martinex v. Park, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 45A05-1012-CT-799, the Court said it was not, because it did not establish causation.
Lesson:
    Proof that a particular person should not have performed a task does not prove that the task was performed improperly.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
top

Expert's Testimony Admissible Despite the Fact that It Doesn't Meet Daubert Standards

Evidence/Expert Testimony Bookmark and Share
September 28, 2011

Today, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an important decision reaffirming its approach to expert scientific evidence in Turner v. State, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2011), Cause No. 49S00-0912-CR-565, in which it held that an expert's opinion was admissible despite the fact that it may not have the test for admissibility of expert testimony set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Lessons:
  1. Scientific evidence should not be excluded in Indiana's state courts simply because it does not meet the standards for admissibility described in Daubert.
  2. The Indiana Supreme Court strongly favors allowing a jury to sort through the weight to be given to expert testimony.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
top

Expert in Federal Court Must Provide More Than Just Conclusions

Evidence/Expert Testimony Bookmark and Share
April 19, 2011

Today, the Seventh Circuit held that a district court properly granted summary judgment to a defendant because a plaintiff's expert asserted causation without explaining his rationale in Bourke v. Conger, ___ F.3d ___ (7th Cir. 2011), Cause No. 09-3859. This is a mistake which you shouldn't make, especially under the new FRCP 26.
Lessons:
  1. Make sure your experts fully describe the rationale for their conclusions in their expert reports.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here
top

In Indiana, an Expert's Scientific Evidence Does Not Need to Meet Daubert Standard

Evidence/Expert Testimony Bookmark and Share
January 25, 2011

Today, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that scientific testimony does not need to meet the standard described in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to be admissible under Evid. R. 702(b) in Akey v. Parkview Hospital, Inc., 941 N.E.2d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Case No. 02A04-1007-CT-44. Thus, a doctor could provide his expert testimony on causation because he described his reasoning and methodologies and that the evidence provided a reasonable amount of confidence that the principles upon which his opinion was based was reliable.
Lessons:
  1. Indiana's courts do not follow Daubert when ruling on the admissibility of scientific expert opinion under Evid. R. 702(b).
  2. A scientific expert's opinion will be admitted if the expert adequately describes the reasoning and methodologies upon which the scientific evidence is based and a reasonable amount of confidence can be placed on the reliability of the principles upon which the opinion is based.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here
top

Questions About the Testing Methods Used by an Expert Must Be Substantial to Justify the Exclusion of Those Results

Evidence/Expert Testimony Bookmark and Share
October 6, 2010

Today, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of DNA evidence under Evid. R. 702 in Kennedy v. State, 934 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), Case No. 89A04-0907-CR-380. That decision is in a criminal case and deals with criminal issues that are, frankly, not the focus of our efforts. However, the way that the Court dealt with the admissibility of the DNA evidence under the Rules of Evidence is universally applicable.
Lessons:
  1. A litigant who is challenging the conclusions of a qualified, scientific expert who used approved testing procedures must demonstrate that there were substantial irregularities with the testing procedure used in this case, which makes the results unreliable.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here
top

7th Circuit Propounds Test for when a Treating Physician Must File a Formal Report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

Evidence/Expert Testimony Bookmark and Share
September 1, 2010

On August 30, 2010, the Seventh Circuit determined, for the first time, when a treating physician who provides an expert opinion as to causation is required to file a formal report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) in Meyers v. Nat'l RR. Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), 619 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2010), Case No. 09-3323. To put the matter simply, "a treating physician who is offered to provide expert testimony as to the cause of the plaintiff's injury, but who did not make that determination in the course of providing treatment" must file such a report.
Lessons:
  1. A treating physician's opinion on causation must have been made in the course of providing treatment if it is not disclosed in accordance with Rule 26(a)(2).
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here
top

Psychologist Not Qualified to Give Expert Opinion on Causation of a Brain Injury

Evidence/Expert Testimony Bookmark and Share
August 13, 2010

Today, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Bennett v. Richmond, 932 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), Case No. 20A03-0906-CV-285, which held that a trial court had abused its discretion when it allowed a psychologist to provide an expert opinion on whether a motor vehicle accident caused a brain injury. While stating that testimony of a medical doctor is not strictly necessary, the psychologist had not demonstrated the requisite expertise.
Lessons:
  1. An expert must have qualifications in determining the etiology of an injury in order to provide an opinion on the causation of that injury.
  2. An expert must base an opinion on the causation of a physical injury on more than an inferential analysis.
Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here
top







Nothing posted on this blog is intended, nor should be construed, as legal advice. Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Nor does any comment on a blog post create an attorney-client relationship. The presence of hyperlinks to other third-party websites does not imply that the firm endorses those websites, their contents, or the activities or views of their owners. Nor does the presence of hyperlinks represent that Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC is verifying the accuracy of any third-party website.

Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC | The Hammond Block Building | 301 Massachusetts Avenue | Indianapolis, IN 46204 | Tel: 317-633-8787 | Fax: 317-633-8797

Copyright © Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Indianapolis Class Action and Trial Attorneys | Legal News | Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo