AUSTIN, Texas — Richard Cohen’s expert testimony that laundering asbestos-tainted clothing resulted in a dose of exposure doubling a woman’s risk of mesothelioma lacks sufficient foundation, a divided Texas appeals court said March 2 in affirming summary judgment for a fiber supplier.
BATON ROUGE, La. — A federal judge in Louisiana on March 2 denied an insurer’s motion to exclude the insured’s expert witness in a coverage lawsuit arising out of an August 2016 Louisiana flood, adopting the reasoning of another district judge who held that the insurer’s arguments to exclude the same expert go to weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc..
TRENTON, N.J. — A trial court did not abuse its discretion in barring a defense expert’s report due to the untimely service of his report and allowing a plaintiff’s expert to testify on a state law concerning a long-term care resident’s rights, a New Jersey appellate court held Feb. 17, affirming a $349,000 award to the resident in her suit over the delay in treating her rising blood sugar level.
DENVER — A lower court properly admitted testimony from a handwriting expert in a fraud case, a federal appeals panel said March 2, rejecting a man’s argument that the expert’s methodology failed to meet standards set in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. and affirming his conviction.
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on Feb. 26 trimmed claims brought by a consumer against a dog food maker alleging that three of its products contain certain contaminants that are not disclosed on the label, limited challenged expert testimony and partially granted class certification with leave for the consumer to amend his motion with an amended damages model.
MILWAUKEE — A nurse practitioner accused of distributing controlled substances outside of her medical practice must submit an updated expert report by March 22 explaining the expert’s methodology, a Wisconsin federal judge ruled Feb. 22, and denied the government’s motion to exclude.
SOUTH BEND, Ind. — A federal judge in Indiana on Feb. 22 denied a woman’s motion to exclude five experts in a dispute over mold and flooding disclosures during the sale of a home, calling her objections “perplexing” and saying that each expert met the qualifications set under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
ATLANTA — In a Feb. 23 ruling, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said a federal judge in Florida did not err in rejecting allegations of copyright infringement levied in connection with “The Dark Tower” book series by Stephen King, later adapted into a motion picture.
PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge in Pennsylvania did not err in granting summary judgment to two physicians who contracted with a nursing home to care for its residents, in refusing to issue two jury instructions proposed by the estate of a former resident who asserted civil rights violations or in limiting the testimony of the estate’s expert witness, a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Feb. 22 in a nonprecedential opinion.
HOUSTON — An insurer on Feb. 19 asked a federal court in Texas to dismiss a law firm’s fraud and civil conspiracy class action alleging that it repeatedly hires “unqualified people to prepare so-called controverting affidavits in areas” in which “they have no knowledge, skill, training, education, or experience,” arguing that the law firm’s own pleadings and Texas law disprove that the insurer and three of its expert witnesses knowingly made false representations.
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A federal judge in South Carolina on Feb. 17 granted in part and denied in part a roof system manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine disputes exist as to whether a condominium association’s claims for negligence and breach of express warranty are timely, and denied the defendant company’s motion to exclude the testimony of two experts on the ground that any challenges to their opinions can be raised on cross-examination.
CHICAGO — An asbestos defendant misframes a Frye v. United States ruling in a way that if adopted would permit its expert to perform genetic testing for any reason regardless of scientific support, a woman suffering from mesothelioma in Illinois told a state court judge on Feb. 16 in opposing reconsideration of the ruling.
BALTIMORE — Expert testimony in a trade secret dispute will be limited, a Maryland federal judge ruled Feb. 8, finding that much of the proposed testimony of one expert constitutes inadmissible legal conclusions, with the rebuttal witness’s testimony largely rendered moot, and that challenges to another expert are best resolved through cross-examination.
FORT WORTH, Texas — Two experts in a suit alleging that a defectively designed ladder caused injuries may not testify, a federal judge in Texas ruled Feb. 10, finding that their reports and testimony do not meet the admissibility threshold established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
PITTSBURGH — An expert witness failed to provide any discernable standard or methodology for his conclusion that an inadequate warning label on a hammer caused a workplace injury, a Pennsylvania federal judge said Jan. 22, granting a manufacturer’s motion to exclude.
NEW ORLEANS — A Louisiana federal judge on Jan. 29 limited the expert testimony in the second bellwether trial in the Taxotere hair loss multidistrict litigation, finding that the expert can’t testify that the cancer drug causes irreversible alopecia but that his opinions based on database and clinical trial analysis are admissible.
SAN ANTONIO — An expert who says that a proper background check may have prevented a mass shooting that left 26 dead may testify, a Texas federal judge ruled Feb. 2, rejecting arguments from the federal government that the expert failed to meet the reliability standard set in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
BOSTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts on Feb. 12 denied motions seeking to limit testimony proffered by experts retained by the owner and developer of a 28-building condominium development that suffers from construction defects, finding that the disclosure of the experts’ identities was timely and that the challenges to their testimony are to the weight of the evidence, not admissibility.
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on Feb. 11 granted a motion by a union health benefit fund to certify a class of purchasers of the Alzheimer’s drug Namenda who were injured by a “pay-for-delay” scheme but denied certification of a class allegedly injured by being forced to switch from an original version of the drug to a newer one.
CINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 9 affirmed summary judgment for a telecommunications company, finding in part that the testimony offered by an expert for a group of Tennessee companies that provide 911 services for their area was correctly excluded because of “multiple fatal defects” on reliability and impermissible legal opinions.