TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Supreme Court on Nov. 12 refused to accept jurisdiction over D.R. Horton Inc. – Jacksonville’s request for review of an appeals court’s ruling affirming the admissibility of two experts’ opinions about construction defects and repair recommendations, thus cementing a condominium owners’ association’s $9.6 million verdict (D.R. Horton Inc. – Jacksonville v. Heron’s Landing Condominium Association of Jacksonville Inc., No. SC19-352, Fla. Sup., 2019 Fla. LEXIS 1935).
GULFPORT, Miss. — A federal judge in Mississippi on Nov. 15 awarded summary judgment to BP Exploration & Production Inc. in a man’s suit claiming that he developed pneumonia and acute respiratory failure as a result of his exposure to oil and chemical dispersants during the cleanup of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that followed the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in April 2010, finding that the man presented no reliable expert testimony to show that his exposure to the chemicals caused his injuries (Blaine McGill v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., et al., No. 18CV159-LG-RHW, S.D. Miss., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198359).
PHOENIX — Two experts for a semiconductor company asserting fraud and contract breach claims against a fabricating company can testify about lost development support damages and the semiconductor fabrication industry in general because their opinions are helpful and reliable, an Arizona federal judge held Nov. 15 (IceMOS Technology Corporation v. Omron Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-2575, D. Ariz., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198397).
SCRANTON, Pa. — A Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge on Nov. 15 allowed expert testimony on post-traumatic stress disorder from both sides in a suit over an alleged sexual assault during a youth overnight camping trip but rejected testimony from an expert for the camp operator on the faultiness of human memory (R.D. v. Shohola, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-01056, M.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198035).
DETROIT — Two economic damages experts for a man who sued police officers for his shooting injuries can testify at trial, though one expert cannot offer the legal opinion that the injured man is “totally disabled,” a Michigan federal judge held Nov. 13 (Eduardo Jacobs v. Raymon Alam, et al., No. 15-10516, E.D. Mich., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196226).
SEATTLE — A police expert is sufficiently qualified to opine that an officer who alleged beat and kicked an unarmed theft suspect should never have been hired as a policeman and that the county that hired him failed to conduct a proper background investigation, a Washington federal magistrate judge decided Nov. 12 (Robert John Preston v. Ryan Boyer, et al., No. 2:16-cv-1106, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196004).
VICTORIA, Texas — An expert for debtor counterclaimants in a dispute among competing oil field industry services companies can opine on the amount of damages caused by the plaintiffs’ tortious acts, though he cannot offer several opinions made in a rebuttal report because the plaintiffs did not have a chance to respond to them, a Texas federal judge ruled Nov. 8 (Greta Yvette Mobley, et al. v. Quality Lease and Rental Holdings, LLC, et al., No. 6:16-cv-0006, S.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194576).
HATTIESBURG, Miss — While an accounting expert can testify about how to properly calculate a utility company’s damages for allegedly defective electrical transformers, any mention of the actual damages is off limits since the number of damaged units he used was inaccurate, a Mississippi federal judge held Nov. 8 (Caribbean Utilities Company, Ltd. v. Howard Industries, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00179, S.D. Miss., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194625).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A majority of a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Nov. 7 affirmed a trial court’s reversal of compensation for parents who say their infant died from vaccinations that caused his sudden crib death, with a dissenting judge saying the ruling goes against the purpose of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (Chase Boatmon, et al. v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, No. 18-2333, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33295).
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal magistrate judge delivered a mixed ruling for Facebook Inc. in a Nov. 7 discovery order, sustaining the social network’s objection to disclosing its source code to one of the proposed expert witnesses for a putative class suing it over scraping certain data from Android mobile devices, while finding that there was no risk of harm in disclosure to a second witness (Lawrence Olin, et al. v. Facebook Inc., No. 3:18-cv-01881, N.D. Calif.).
CINCINNATI — A trial court erred when it “overlooked too many genuine factual disputes” and “improperly excluded expert testimony” supporting a certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) who claims that she was fired because her employer thought she was visually disabled even though she wasn’t, a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Nov. 6 (Paula E. Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists P.C., No. 19-5148, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33165).
SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on Nov. 4 denied a defendant company’s motion to exclude the testimony of an expert who opines about the economic benefits that a trucking and salvage company obtained as a result of violating the Clean Water Act (CWA), as well as the economic impact of a civil penalty, holding that the defendant company is challenging only the expert’s methodology, which can be addressed during cross-examination (United States v. Bobby Wolford Trucking & Salvage Inc., et al., No. C18-747, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191472).
NEW ORLEANS — The lower causation standard in a Jones Act case does not lower the standard for expert testimony admission, and having properly excluded the two experts a federal judge in Louisiana properly granted judgment, a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held Nov. 5 (Robert Schindler v. Dravo Basic Materials Co. Inc., No. 19-30126, 5th Cir.).
JACKSON, Miss. — A divided Mississippi Court of Appeals on Oct. 29 reversed a man’s conviction for killing his infant daughter after finding that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the opinion of the prosecution’s medical expert that the baby’s death was caused by shaken-baby syndrome (SBS) (Joshua Eric Hawk Clark v. Mississippi, No. 2017-KA-00411-COA, Miss. App., 2019 Miss. App. LEXIS 529).
CINCINNATI — A trial court properly excluded an expert witness for the estate of a woman who was allegedly injured during sinus surgery, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Oct. 30 in a medical malpractice case that ended in a jury verdict for the operating doctor (Duane M. Mathis v. R. Arturo Roa, M.D., et al., No. 18-4168, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32460).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — An expert for the victim in a police shooting case can testify about the use of force by police but cannot offer a legal conclusion on the conduct of the accused officer, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled Oct. 29 (Erika Eberhardinger v. York, et al., No. 1:16-cv-2481, M.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186982).
DENVER — A mechanical engineer is not qualified enough to opine as an expert that a defective scissors lift caused injuries to a worker who fell off the lift while moving gear off a resort stage, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found Oct. 28 in affirming the expert’s exclusion and resulting summary judgment win for the lift maker (Timothy I. Siegel, et al. v. Blue Giant Equipment Corporation, Nos. 18-5113 and 19-5007, 10th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32254).
SCRANTON, Pa. — A fire expert’s methods are reliable, and his testimony on the cause of a 2017 blaze that destroyed a vacation home in the Pennsylvania Poconos is relevant, a federal magistrate judge determined Oct. 25 in denying a property management company’s bids to exclude the testimony and for summary judgment (State Farm & Casualty Company v. M&M Services, No. 3:18-cv-01282, M.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184560).
MOBILE, Ala. — In two separate rulings issued Oct. 17, an Alabama federal judge denied an auto dealership’s motion to exclude expert testimony offered by the auto manufacturer after determining that the testimony is reliable and said that based on the testimony, the dealership’s motion for summary judgment must be denied as the testimony creates an issue of fact on the reasonableness of the auto manufacturer’s decision to establish an additional dealership near an existing dealership (GPI AL Inc. v. Nissan North America Inc., No. 17-511, S.D. Ala., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179491, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179494).
DENVER — The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 16 affirmed summary judgment for Phillips 66 Co. on disability discrimination claims by a former employee in Oklahoma who was fired after he failed a company drug test, finding no error or abuse in the trial court’s expert witness rulings (Richard Turner v. Phillips 66 Company, No. 19-5030, 10th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30880).