Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Pathology Expert Witness

  • Law Enforcement Expert Allowed to Opine on Mental Health

    Law Enforcement Expert Allowed to Opine on Mental Health

    This case concerns a fatal officer-involved shooting that took place on February 5, 2023. Plaintiff Matilde Garza alleged that Defendants County of San Bernardino, Bill Abernathy, and Nicholas Krinder (collectively, “Defendants”) used excessive deadly force by shooting and killing Plaintiff’s son Antonio F. Garza, Jr. (the “Decedent”).

    Defendant filed motions to preclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s experts, John C. Hiserodt and Scott A. DeFoe.

    Pathology Expert Witness

    John Chatfield Hiserodt has performed over 12,000 autopsies in his career, including many cases of in-custody deaths and various types of shooting cases.

    He has been qualified as a Forensic Pathology Expert in determining cause, manner and mechanism of death in numerous trial venues throughout California and the country, including providing opinions regarding bullet trajectory in many shooting-related deaths.

    Get the full story on challenges to John Hiserodt’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness

    Scott Allen DeFoe has twenty-eight years of law enforcement experience where he responded to hundreds of calls where subject may be barricaded, mentally ill, suicidal, experiencing a mental health crisis and worked almost 20 years with L.A.P.D’s mental evaluation unit.

    DeFoe also volunteered for five years with a suicide prevention hotline.

    Want to know more about the challenges Scott DeFoe has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    John Hiserodt

    Defendant sought to preclude Hiserodt from offering opinions regarding bullet trajectories and the position of the shooting officers relative to Garza. 

    Defendants argued that Hiserodt is not qualified in ballistics or crime-scene reconstruction so as to testify about such opinions and therefore, this evidence is inadmissible.

    Hiserdot has demonstrated his qualifications in similar cases and in medicine to form the basis of his opinion. Therefore, any probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury.

    Scott DeFoe

    Defendant sought to exclude any opinions by DeFoe regarding Garza’s alleged mental health crisis or mental illness. 

    Plaintiff submits evidence that beginning in 2020, Garza began to suffer mental health issues, and was experiencing a mental health crisis on the date of the incident.

    Defendant argued that DeFoe lacked the background, training, experience, or qualification to provide expert opinion testimony regarding Garza’s mental health status because DeFoe is not a psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, or other individual with specialized knowledge which would allow him to opine on Garza’s mental health status at the time of the incident or his mental health history.

    At his deposition DeFoe stated he will not offer any opinion diagnosing Garza but rather how police officers in California are trained to recognize behavioral indicators associated with mental illness.

    The Court has reviewed DeFoe’s curriculum vitae and there is no reference to him being a medical provider but it stated that DeFoe has experience in crisis negotiations/mental health training.

    The Court found based on DeFoe’s resume, testimony and report that his experience is relevant to Plaintiff’s causes of action under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motions in limine to preclude the testimony of John C. Hiserodt and Scott Defoe.

    Key Takeaway

    Experts must be qualified to form the opinions that make up their testimony. DeFoe has sufficient experience in crisis negotiations/mental health training.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Matilde Garza V. County Of San Bernardino
    Docket Number: 5:23cv1849
    Court Name: United States District Court, California Central
    Order Date: February 19, 2026
  • Pathology Expert Allowed to Opine on Pain and Suffering

    Pathology Expert Allowed to Opine on Pain and Suffering

    Plaintiff Tabria Montgomery’s father, Michael Montgomery sustained fatal injuries while operating a Bobst Mastercut 145 PER 2.0 Die-Cutter machine. She asserted claims individually on behalf of herself and her father’s estate against Defendant Bobst Group North America, Inc. (“Bobst NA”) for strict products liability, negligence, wrongful death, and survival.

    Bobst NA filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Wayne Ross, M.D., P.C.

    Pathology Expert Witness

    Wayne Kenneth Ross, M.D., P.C. is board-certified by both the National Board of Medical Examiners and the American Board of Pathology in Anatomic and Forensic Pathology. He maintains current medical licensure in
    Pennsylvania and has practiced continuously as a forensic pathologist for over three decades.

    Throughout his career, he has conducted thousands of autopsies and
    death investigations involving traumatic injuries, gunshot wounds, blunt force trauma, and other violent deaths where assessing consciousness and pain perception at the time of injury is critical.

    Want to know more about the challenges Wayne Ross has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Reliability

    Bobst NA maintained that Ross used unreliable methods to reach his conclusion that Montgomery experienced sixty to ninety seconds of pain and suffering. The Court disagreed.

    Bobst NA sought to exclude Ross’ opinion based on its argument that Ross did not examine scientific literature as required, and instead cherry-picked studies to support his causal connections. It focuses its criticism of Ross’ report on its references to “studies pertaining to strangulation and suffocation events in children, examinations of hangings, and studies detailing the areas of the brain associated with fear response.” Bobst NA explained that Ross did not address “either in his report or his deposition . . . why he believed that studies focusing on children and strangulation were more appropriate in his analysis than studies of adults and traumatic compression asphyxia injuries.”

    While it is a close call, upon review, Ross’ opinion is not based only on “subjective belief or unsupported speculation.” While Bobst NA may disagree with the methods he used to reach his conclusions—formulating a hypothesis, analyzing available evidence and literature, and applying the principles of neuropathology—the methods used are enough to provide “good grounds” for his opinions under Rule 702.

    B. Fit

    Bobst NA also contended that Ross’ opinions did not “fit” the facts of this case, arguing that they “will not assist a jury” and “would only serve to cause confusion and misunderstanding.”

    Plaintiff has shown that Ross’ opinions fit the case because they have a nexus to and will assist the jury with the questions that jurors will be required to consider when determining whether Plaintiff can recover for survival.

    Held

    The Court denied Bobst NA’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert Wayne Ross, M.D., P.C.

    Key Takeaway

    When determining whether to admit expert testimony or not, the test “is not whether a particular scientific opinion has the best foundation or whether it is demonstrably correct.” Any gap between Ross’ opinion and the information underlying it must be “extreme” and “clear” for it to be excluded as unreliable.

    Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

    Biomechanics Expert Allowed to Opine on the Cause of Death

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Montgomery V. Bobst Mex SA
    Docket Number: 2:24cv367
    Court Name: United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern
    Order Date: April 30, 2026
  • Microbiology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Performance Ratings

    Microbiology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Performance Ratings

    This action arises from Jennifer Hailes’ claim of retaliation for prior EEO protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hailes challenged the administrative grant of summary judgment in favor of the VA in EEOC Case No. 532-2023-00016X for Hailes’ claims of retaliation for protected activity in the form of a “fully successful” performance rating for Fiscal Year 2021 and an admonishment by her supervisor on January 4, 2022.

    Defendant Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs filed a motion to exclude two expert reports of Tracie Ellis-Reid and Steven N. Emancipator offered by Plaintiff Jennifer Hailes.

    Microbiology Expert Witness

    Tracie Ellis-Reid is a board-certified medical technologist in the discipline of microbiology. She worked for over 30 years in Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Services at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    Get the full story on challenges to Tracie Ellis-Reid’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Pathology Expert Witness

    Steven N. Emancipator is Board-certified in anatomic and clinical pathology and in immunopathology. He currently consults with clinical and research laboratories and with principal investigators.

    Previously, with the College of American Pathologists, Emancipator served on the Council on Accreditation, as a state commissioner, a master laboratory inspector, and as director of a clinical laboratory certified by the College. For 35 years, he served as a professor of pathology as Case Western Reserve University and for the last nine years he has been an emeritus professor. From 2006 through 2017, he was chief of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Service, at the Veterans Affairs hospital in Cleveland.

    Want to know more about the challenges Steven Emancipator has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    1. Tracie Ellis-Reid

    Until 2020, Ellis-Reid was Hailes’ supervisor and the person who prepared her performance evaluations. Ellis-Reid proposed to testify about Hailes’ “annual performance rating” for fiscal year 2021.

    Indeed, Ellis-Reid’s report is composed of an element-by-element critique of Hailes 2021 performance review, with an assessment of exhibits used to support the review, and a comparison with a co-worker.

    Ellis-Reid proposed to determine, with reference to certain agency documents, whether the Secretary “violated laws and regulations regarding patient safety, the Plaintiff’s Title VII right, and adverse disciplinary action (post-protected activity reprisal) in the form of the lowering of the Plaintiffs FY21 annual performance rating.” There are a few problems with this proposal, starting with the fact that Ellis-Reid doesn’t claim to be a legal professional. So she’s not in a position to offer an opinion about whether anyone unlawfully retaliated against Hailes. But even if she were, it’s the Court’s job to determine what the law is and it’s the jury’s job to determine whether a violation occurred.

    Even putting these concerns aside, the fact that a witness might qualify as an expert does not, as a result of that expertise, mean that her opinion is admissible. The expert’s opinion must still otherwise be helpful to the trier of fact.

    The Secretary conceded that—even though Hailes offered Ellis-Reid as a non-scientific expert in agency performance evaluations—Ellis-Reid’s opinions in “the laboratory specimen testing portions” of Ellis-Reid’s report are admissible.

    The remaining three sections of Ellis-Reid’s report discuss Hailes’ performance in customer service, safety, and education and employee development. By comparing Hailes’ performance to the criteria set out in collective bargaining agreement provisions and Veterans Affairs policies and procedures, Ellis-Reid concluded that she disagreed with the overall ratings that Hailes received in these areas. But as the Secretary pointed out, an expert isn’t required to say whether Hailes’ ratings in these areas were appropriate.

    2. Steven N. Emancipator

    Emancipator proposed to review acts of Congress, provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations, certain accreditation standards, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Labor Management Relations master agreement.

    For starters, Emancipator’s stated objective is to make sure that Hailes meets her burden of proof, “establish undeniable facts” that Hailes “received unlawful, improper, or conflicting orders,’ and “prove” certain other matters. In other words, Emancipator proposed to offer an “advocacy-based interpretation” rather than one based on his expertise.

    Emancipator said that “expert review of Microsoft Outlook email correspondences of the Plaintiff and P&LMS management officials is necessary to show that notifications of unlawful, improper, and/or conflicting orders from the Plaintiff went unanswered and unresolved, which is an imminent threat to patient care and safety.” But the jury doesn’t need an expert to say whether emails went unanswered and unresolved, so testimony on this issue wouldn’t be helpful.

    Emancipator also said that his consideration and opinion about evidence supplied to him is “necessary to determine if the Agency violated laws and regulations regarding patient safety, and regarding the Plaintiff’s right to refuse such orders that would require the Plaintiff to violate applicable laws, that led to a lower performance rating of bench work and records & reporting for the Plaintiff’s 2020 fiscal year annual performance rating.”

    The Court found that Emancipator did not discuss the evidence in this case that he used to base his opinion. He’s basing his conclusion on “the best of his recollection and understanding” as the VA Medical Center Director, a position which, according to his resume, he last held in 2017.

    Nevertheless, the portion of Emancipator’s report that details the duties of a lab director is helpful and relevant.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Secretary’s motion to exclude the reports of Tracie Ellis-Reid and Steven Emancipator.

    It should be noted that Emancipator and Ellis-Reid neglected to state all the cases in which they had testified as experts in the last four years, and their reports did not state their compensation “for their study and testimony in this case.” If Hailes wishes to rely on Ellis-Reid’s and Emancipator’s opinions about laboratory testing and laboratory director duties, respectively, she must provide to the Secretary supplemental reports from Ellis-Reid and Dr. Emancipator with the information required by Rule 26.

    Key Takeaway

    There is a “subtle” but “nonetheless important” distinction between “opining on the ultimate question of liability” — which is impermissible — and “stating opinions that suggest the answer to the ultimate issue or that give the jury all the information from which it can draw inferences as to the ultimate issue” — which is permissible.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Hailes V. Secretary of Department of Veterans Affairs
    Docket Number: 1:24cv293
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
    Order Date: April 30, 2026
  • Pathology Expert’s Emergency Care Opinions Excluded

    Pathology Expert’s Emergency Care Opinions Excluded

    Plaintiffs Lawrence Lieberman, Linda Lieberman, and the Estate of Myron Lieberman asserted claims for negligence and wrongful death against Defendant Target Corporation.

    This matter involves a slip-and-fall incident that occurred at a Target store on December 9, 2021. The man who fell, Myron Lieberman, fractured his hip in the fall. He was taken to the hospital, where he underwent surgery the next morning and was discharged without complications two days after that. On December 24, 2021, fifteen days after the fall, Lieberman passed away.

    Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ medical causation expert, Dr. Marvin Pietruszka.

    Pathology Expert Witness

    Marvin Pietruszka, M.D., M.Sc., F.C.A.P. is a forensic pathologist and forensic toxicologist who is board certified in anatomic and clinical pathology, occupational medicine, and forensic toxicology.

    He earned his M.D. at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara in 1972, completed his Pathology Residency at the University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine in 1976, and also received a Masters Degree in Forensic Toxicology in 2004 from the University of Florida.

    Pietruszka has been doing IME’s for the past 11 years and has testified in several cases. He has been doing Med/Legal work since 1997. He is licensed to practice medicine in California, Texas and Pennsylvania. Pietruszka is a Clinical Associate Professor of Pathology, University of Southern California, serves as a Director at both the Psychemedics, a toxicology laboratory and at H.I.B.M. a genetic research laboratory and is a pathologist at Forensic Autopsy Services.

    Discover more cases with Marvin Pietruszka as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Plaintiffs offered Pietruszka to opine on: (1) the effects of Defendant’s employees’ actions on the date in question; (2) how the employees should have acted in response to Leiberman’s injury; (3) how Lieberman’s risk of injury would have been reduced had his hip been immobilized and had he been immediately transported the hospital; and (4) Lieberman’s chance of survival had Defendant’s employees acted properly.

    However, the Defendant argued that Pietruszka was not qualified to give these opinions under Rule 702(a) and that the opinions lacked a reliable factual basis and methodology under Rule 702(b) and (c).

    A. Qualifications Under 702(a)

    To begin with, Pietruszka lacks specialized experience or training in emergency medicine, trauma medicine, or acute care.

    Plaintiffs’ counsel stated at oral argument that Pietruszka has decades of experience examining mortality rates in elderly individuals after hip fractures. But this expertise is not reflected in his research, publications, or courses taught. Instead, his CV describes research in various other areas such as immunizations, cancer, diabetes, and genetic mutations.

    Therefore, the Court held that Plaintiffs have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Pietruszka is qualified as an expert by his “knowledge, skills, experience, training, or education” to opine on the treatment of Lieberman after his fall or the consequences of that treatment.

    B. Factual Basis and Methodology Under Rule 702(b) and (c)

    Pietruszka’s report lists nine conditions that are the most frequent causes of death in hip fracture cases: pneumonia, urinary tract infection, deep wound infection, myocardial infarction, stroke, sepsis, septic shock, pulmonary embolism, and deep vein thrombosis.

    After listing these common causes of death, Pietruszka opined that the most probable cause of Lieberman’s death was deep vein thrombosis that resulted in a pulmonary embolism. While these are two of the nine conditions Pietruszka identified as frequent causes of death after hip fractures, he did nothing to rule out the other seven common causes.

    Pietruszka did briefly explain why he settled on deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism as the causes of Lieberman’s death. He states that Lieberman’s “continued lower extremity pain several weeks after undergoing surgical treatment for the hip fracture suggests there was significant tissue injury at the site of the fracture.”

    He attributed this tissue injury to Defendant’s moving of Lieberman from the fall site, an act he asserts “would have caused more extensive tissue damage that would result in clot formation.” But Pietruszka did not explain how the pain experienced by Lieberman in the two weeks after his fracture and surgery, or the tissue damage he assumed, were any different from the pain and tissue damage that would have been caused by the fracture itself and the surgery performed the following day, during which a metal rod was inserted into Lieberman’s femur.

    Stated differently, the Court held that Pietruszka provided no facts or reliable methodology the jury can use to conclude that Lieberman’s death was caused by the actions of Defendant’s employees rather than by the fall, hip fracture, and surgery of an 80-year-old man.

    C. Rule 702 Conclusion

    Plaintiffs have not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Pietruszka is qualified to give the trauma and emergency care opinions he offers in this case, as required by Rule 702(a). Nor have they shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his opinions are based on sufficient facts and data or reliable principles and methods, as required by Rule 702(b) and (c). The Court accordingly granted Defendant’s motion and excluded Pietruszka’s testimony from the evidence in this case.

    Held

    The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to disqualify Dr. Marvin Pietruszka.

    Key Takeaway:

    In differential diagnosis, the expert “assumes the pertinence of all potential causes, then rules out the ones as to which there is no plausible evidence of causation, and then determines the most likely cause among those that cannot be excluded.”

    When eliminating a potential cause, the “expert must provide reasons for rejecting alternative hypotheses using scientific methods and procedures and the elimination of those hypotheses must be founded on more than subjective beliefs or unsupported speculation.”

    Pietruszka provided no explanation of how, in Lieberman’s case, he eliminated the other seven common causes of mortality following hip fractures.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Lieberman V. Target Corporation
    Docket Number: 2:24cv450
    Court Name: United States District Court, Arizona
    Order Date: November 03, 2025
  • Expert Testimony Survives Daubert Challenge in Surgical Mesh Injury Case

    Expert Testimony Survives Daubert Challenge in Surgical Mesh Injury Case

    Connie Thacker (Plaintiff) received two surgical mesh devices, Prolift and TVT-Secur, as implants on May 8, 2009. Both devices were manufactured by Ethicon, Inc. and were designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence in women. Later, Thacker sued, alleging damages resulting from the use of these devices and identified Elizabeth Laposata as her “Case-Specific expert.”

    The Defendants moved to exclude Laposata’s testimony regarding general principles of tissue reactions to mesh, changes in the mesh after implantation, pain and suffering, and her opinion that Thacker experienced certain complications.

    Pathology Expert Witness

    Elizabeth Ann Laposata, M.D., F.C.A.P., F.A.S.C.P., is an expert in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology who has served as an expert witness in matters involving negligence, criminal law, and products liability. She has testified in cases before courts including the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the Southern District of West Virginia, and the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, with judges such as Joseph R. Goodwin, William S. Duffey Jr., and others presiding.

    Get the full story on challenges to Elizabeth Ann Laposata’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.  

    Discussion by the Court

    Impermissible General Testimony

    The Defendants argued that Laposata’s general opinions exceeded her designation as a case-specific expert and included irrelevant discussion of mesh changes and symptoms not experienced by Thacker. The Court adopted the reasoning in Meade v. Ethicon, Inc., which held that such general background is permissible when used to explain the pathology underlying the Plaintiff’s symptoms and to support case-specific opinions. The Court found her opinions consistent with her role and admissible under Rule 702.

    Qualification to Opine on Mesh Changes

    Defendants claimed Laposata was unqualified to testify about mesh degradation, citing a 2014 deposition where she allegedly admitted she was not a mesh degradation expert. The Court again relied on Meade, finding that her training, work, and literature review qualified her to opine on degraded mesh in human tissue. It emphasized that an expert’s self-description in a prior case is not dispositive and noted her continued education since 2014.

    Qualification to Opine on Pain and Suffering

    Defendants argued she lacked qualifications to opine on Thacker’s pain and suffering because she does not treat live patients for pain. The Court disagreed, citing Meade, and held that a pathologist’s expertise includes determining causes of injuries and diseases, which encompasses opinions on pain arising from pathological findings.

    Reliability of Testimony Without a Control

    Defendants contended her testimony on Thacker’s complications was unreliable because she did not compare the Plaintiff’s tissue slides with control slides from asymptomatic patients. They relied on MDL precedent that found such methodology insufficient. The Court declined to follow that reasoning, holding that her direct examination of Thacker’s explanted mesh provided adequate validation under Daubert. The absence of a control went to the weight of her testimony, not its admissibility.

    Held

    Defendants’ motion  to exclude testimony from Plaintiff’s expert Elizabeth Laposata was denied.

    Key Takeaway

    The Court upheld Laposata’s case-specific testimony, finding her qualified to opine on mesh changes, pain, and complications, and ruling her methods reliable despite the lack of control slides.

    Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case:

    Urogynecology Expert Witness Testimony about inadequate risk disclosure admitted in medical device product liability action

    Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert’s Testimony on Mesh Porosity and Stiffness Admitted

    Urogynecology Expert’s Opinion on Continuum of Care Admitted

    Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert’s Opinion Regarding the Common Knowledge of Pelvic Surgeons Admitted

    Biomedical Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Product Warnings Admitted

    Biomaterials Expert Barred from Testifying About Corporate Knowledge and Intent

    Case Details

    Case Caption: Thacker v. Ethicon Inc.
    Docket Number: 5:20cv50
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division
    Order Date August 11, 2025
  • Pathology Expert Witness’ Testimony Excluded Due to Rampant Plagiarism

    Pathology Expert Witness’ Testimony Excluded Due to Rampant Plagiarism

    A district judge barred Harvard pathologist from testifying because his report was merely a wholesale adoption of International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (“IARC”) findings under the guise of his own expertise.

    In this toxic tort case that is part of a suite of companion cases, more than sixty Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation’s weapons manufacturing facility in Orlando gave off toxic chemicals that contaminated the surrounding air, soil, and groundwater, which caused Plaintiffs to suffer various injuries.

    The Court decided (1) that this is a McClain category two case requiring a full Daubert analysis; and (2) to take general and specific causation up on the full scientific record.

    In support of their resulting strict liability, negligence, nuisance, and other claims, Plaintiffs have marshalled various doctors to opine on general causation— that is, whether each chemical at issue is able to cause the types of injuries at issue.

    Lockheed moved to exclude to exclude one such doctor, Dr. Dipak Panigrahy on the grounds that he lacked a reliable methodology, largely because he had plagiarized significant portions of his report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (“IARC”) Monographs publications (and the sources IARC cited).

    Pathology Expert Witness

    Dr. Dipak Panigrahy, M.D. is an Assistant Professor of Pathology at Harvard Medical School. Panigrahy was accepted into medical school at Boston University at age 17. He graduated from the combined BA/MD program at Boston University Medical School and earned his M.D. degree in 1994.

    In 2015, he was awarded the American Society of Investigative Pathology (ASIP) Cotran Early Investigator Award and a Young Investigator Award at the 14th International Conference on Bioactive Lipids in Cancer, Inflammation, and Related Diseases in Budapest, Hungary. Since 2015, he has held a Visiting Professorship at Khon Kaen University in Thailand. He has chaired over ten symposiums and given over 70 invited lectures at various local, national, and international meetings over the past decade.

    Discussion by the Court

    Panigrahy’s report indicated a lack of intellectual rigor that one would expect from any expert

    The Court observed that Panigrahy extensively plagiarized his report. And his deposition made the plagiarism appear deliberate, as he repeatedly “outright refused to acknowledge the long swaths of his report that quoted other work verbatim without any quotation marks at all—instead stubbornly insisting that he cited over 1,100 references, as if that resolved the attribution issue.” The plagiarism was so ubiquitous throughout the report that it was frankly overwhelming to try to make heads or tails of just what is Panigrahy’s own work—a task that neither he nor Plaintiffs’ counsel even attempted to tackle.

    If neither Panigrahy nor Plaintiffs’ counsel nor the Court can parse out exactly what is his own analysis based on his own expertise, the Court cannot expect the jury to do so. The district judge noted that the expert’s “report is – put plainly – a mess” and it simply could not put it in front of a jury.

    Plagiarism by itself does not necessarily warrant exclusion of an expert per se, as it typically bears on credibility rather than reliability. But when the plagiarism is so blatant that it represents deliberate lack of candor, it may cause the report to be unreliable enough to justify exclusion.

    Because the report indicated a lack of intellectual rigor that one would expect from any expert, the plagiarism itself was sufficient reason for exclusion in this case.

    Panigrahy’s report lifted a great deal of its analysis from IARC in particular

    But the plagiarism here reflected even deeper methodological problems because the report lifted a great deal of its analysis from IARC in particular.

    Research agencies like IARC are, understandably, focused on protecting public health and recommending protective standards, rather than evaluating causation from an expert standpoint in the litigation context.

    IARC determines qualitatively whether substances are carcinogenic to humans; its descriptors have “no quantitative significance” such as more likely than not. Troublingly, Panigrahy did not grasp this crucial distinction between IARC’s classifications and the general causation preponderance standard.

    Panigrahy copied lengthy paragraphs from IARC verbatim but conveniently left out sentences in which IARC urged caution about the limitations of its findings

    The Court held that Panigrahy did not just lift from IARC without alteration. Rather, several times, he copied lengthy paragraphs from IARC verbatim but conveniently left out sentences in which IARC urged caution about the limitations of its findings, misleadingly presenting the science as more definitive than it actually is. Selectively copying to overstate the science made Panigrahy’s methodology even less reliable.

    Moreover, since Panigrahy did not use quotation marks around the passages he lifted from the IARC, it would be nearly impossible to find every instance in his 500-page report where he went beyond IARC’s standards by omitting its cautionary language. As a result, the Court cannot identify reliable sections.

    In sum, the rampant plagiarism in Panigrahy’s report led the Court to conclude that his general causation methodology as a whole was too unreliable to present to a jury.

    Held

    The Court granted Lockheed’s motion to exclude the testimony of general causation expert Dr. Dipak Panigrahy.

    Key Takeaway:

    Plagiarism by an expert does not automatically lead to exclusion; it primarily affects credibility. However, when plagiarism is blatant and suggests a deliberate lack of candor, it can also impact the reliability of the expert’s report and testimony. The Court held that Panigrahy did not just lift from IARC without alteration. Rather, several times, he copied lengthy paragraphs from IARC verbatim but omitted cautionary statements regarding the limitations of its findings. This selective copying misrepresented the science as more definitive than it actually is, further undermining the reliability of his methodology.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Henderson Et Al V. Lockheed Martin Corporation Et Al
    Docket Number: 6:21cv1363
    Court Name: United States District Court, Florida Middle
    Order Date: March 18,2024