Expert Witness Profiler

Blog

  • Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on Workplace Dynamics Admitted

    Law Enforcement Expert’s Testimony on Workplace Dynamics Admitted

    Solangie Acosta was a Muskegon Heights Police Department(“MHPD”) law enforcement officer between 2017 and 2022 who brought nine claims against her former employer, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, disability status, and an exercise of her worker’s compensation rights.

    Defendants filed a motion to preclude testimony by Acosta’s expert Wendy Patrick, a former prosecutor and law enforcement trainer, who intended to testify regarding law enforcement practices and the difficulty that officers face in making complaints, including sexual harassment complaints, against other officers and their superiors.

    Law Enforcement Expert Witness

    Wendy L. Patrick, J.D., Ph.D. has been researching, training, presenting, and publishing within the field of gender discrimination and sexual harassment for over 20 years. She regularly teaches and trains on the insidious progression of gender-based discrimination and harassment within professional relationships, why victims remain employed in positions of power inequality when they are targeted, and the hallmarks of a discriminatory workplace culture.

    Patrick is a certified Institute of Criminal Investigation (ICI) Certified Trainer for law enforcement and provides consulting services and training in trauma-informed sexual assault response and investigation on a national level.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendants moved to preclude Patrick’s testimony on “empirical documentation and testimony regarding workplace dynamics including discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation within a male-dominated workplace” and “the potential adverse effects likely to impact a female law enforcement officer targeted as described.”

    Defendants argued that Patrick lacked sufficient qualifications and that Patrick’s expert report “at no point even attempts to discuss, reference, or even acknowledge the facts of this case” given that “the only [case-specific] documents reviewed and information considered was Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.”

    Acosta responded that Patrick’s expert report and curriculum vitae establish that she has specialized knowledge as a certified law enforcement trainer and as a published author regarding law enforcement practices. Acosta submitted persuasive authority from federal trial courts indicating that such testimony may be admissible in sexual harassment cases involving police officers.

    Defendants, however, have not presented any controlling Sixth Circuit authority indicating that general expert testimony on the subjects noted in Patrick’s report should be excluded on the facts presently before the Court.

    The Court concluded that Defendants have failed to establish the wholesale inadmissibility of Patrick’s expert testimony.

    That said, Defendants are free to object to specific opinions offered by Patrick if they, for example, violate Federal Rule of Evidence 403 or any other applicable rules. Defendants are also free to object if Patrick attempts to apply her general testimony to the specific facts of this case to the extent that Patrick failed to disclose such an opinion in her expert report.

    Held

    The Court denied Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude the testimony by expert Wendy Patrick without prejudice subject to the guidance provided above.

    Key Takeaway

    Expert testimony about the tendencies of victims of sexual harassment does not require specific knowledge about the parties. Experts routinely offer general testimony about their field of expertise without knowledge of the case at bar.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Acosta V. Muskegon Heights
    Docket Number: 1:23cv972
    Court Name: United States District Court, Michigan Western
    Order Date: January 06, 2026
  • Public Relations Expert’s Testimony on Negative Publicity Admitted

    Public Relations Expert’s Testimony on Negative Publicity Admitted

    This case arises out of the tragic murder of four University of Idaho students in November 2022. Plaintiff Rebecca Scofield is a professor at the University of Idaho. She alleged that, despite never meeting any of these students or being involved with their murders in any way, Defendant Ashley Guillard posted numerous TikTok (and later YouTube) videos falsely claiming that Plaintiff (i) had an extramarital, same-sex, romantic affair with one of the victims; and then (ii) ordered the four murders to prevent the affair from coming to light.

    Plaintiff sent cease-and-desist letters to Defendant in the following days and weeks. When Defendant did not stop, Plaintiff initiated this action. Plaintiff asserts two defamation claims against Defendant: one is premised upon the false statements regarding Plaintiff’s involvement with the murders themselves, the other is premised upon the false statement regarding Plaintiff’s romantic relationship with one of the murdered students.

    Plaintiff has identified two experts who may testify at trial: Dr. Rebecca Tallent and Rebecca Bohn. In advance of trial, Defendant filed a motion to exclude these experts’ testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

    Public Relations Expert Witness

    Rebecca J. Tallent is a retired associate professor emerita with more than five decades of experience in journalism, public relations, and academia. She holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism, a master’s degree in education with a journalism emphasis, and a doctorate in education focused on higher education, classroom teaching, and mass communications.

    During her career, Tallent taught public relations and journalism at the University of Idaho and other institutions, published scholarly and professional works on media and ethics, and worked professionally in journalism and public relations.

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

    Mental Health Expert Witness

    Rebecca Bohn is a licensed mental health counselor with a Master of Arts degree in counseling psychology and more than three decades of experience providing psychotherapy and behavioral health treatment.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Rebecca Tallent

    Tallent offered opinions concerning how defamatory statements made via social medial can affect an individual’s professional reputation in an academic setting. She specifically opined that Defendant’s statements have damaged Plaintiff’s reputation to a significant degree and that it could take decades, or even a generation, for Plaintiff to restore her reputation, if ever.

    Defendant argued that Tallent is not qualified to offer these opinions and that her testimony is unreliable because it is speculative, exaggerated, and unsupported by facts or data tied to Plaintiff’s actual circumstances.

    The Court held that Tallent’s education, training, and extensive professional experience in journalism, public relations, and academia qualify her to testify as an expert regarding general principles of reputation, branding, and the ways in which negative publicity — particularly online — can impact professionals in academic environments. 

    Tallent’s testimony is also relevant. Testimony explaining how reputational harm can occur, how internet-based dissemination differs from traditional media, and how academics may be uniquely vulnerable to reputational injury may assist the trier of fact in understanding issues beyond the knowledge of a lay juror.

    However, much of Tallent’s report is framed in conditional or probabilistic terms, such as statements that Defendant’s conduct “ha[s] the capacity” to affect Plaintiff’s reputation or “may cause” harm. Such phrasing underscores the speculative nature of her conclusions and highlights the absence of a reliable basis for opining that reputational harm has in fact occurred, or will occur, to any particular degree. Given the significant weight juries may place on expert testimony, Rule 702 requires more than unsupported statements grounded solely in the expert’s authority. Without a reliable foundation demonstrating how Tallent reached her conclusions about the existence, severity, or duration of Plaintiff’s reputational harm, those opinions risk misleading the jury.

    Rebecca Bohn

    Bohn began treating Plaintiff in May 2023 and has met with her regularly since that time. Based on her training, clinical experience, and longitudinal treatment of Plaintiff, Bohn diagnosed Plaintiff with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and opined that Plaintiff will require ongoing mental health treatment into the future.

    Based on her training, clinical experience, and longitudinal treatment of Plaintiff, Bohn diagnosed Plaintiff with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and opined that Plaintiff will require ongoing mental health treatment into the future.

    Defendant argued that Bohn is not qualified to diagnose PTSD, that her opinions are unreliable because they allegedly depart from the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, and that defamation cannot, as a matter of law or medicine, constitute a qualifying traumatic event.

    The Court disagreed and concluded that Bohn is qualified to testify and that Defendant’s challenges go to the weight of her testimony, not its admissibility. Moreover, testimony regarding Plaintiff’s mental health diagnosis, symptoms, treatment history, and prognosis may assist the jury in understanding the nature and scope of the claimed injury and in determining damages, if any. Accordingly, Bohn’s testimony satisfies Rule 702’s relevance requirement.

    The Court additionally found Bohn’s testimony sufficiently reliable. As a psychotherapist, licensed mental health counselor, and behavior health educator, she is uniquely qualified to diagnose patients with mental impairments, including PTSD. Defendant’s unsupported argument that defamation cannot constitute a traumatic triggering event sufficient to support a PTSD diagnosis is ultimately a dispute over diagnostic criteria and causation.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude the expert testimony and evidence of Rebecca Bohn and Rebecca Tallent.

    Key Takeaway

     Unlike an expert retained solely for litigation, Bohn’s opinions are premised upon a course of treatment, repeated clinical evaluations, and an ongoing relationship with Plaintiff. Courts recognize that such medical care provides a reliable basis for diagnostic opinions. 

    Whether Plaintiff’s experience satisfies the clinical requirements for PTSD are matters on which mental health professions may (or may not) disagree. Such disagreements are appropriately explored through cross-examination and, if Defendant chooses, competing expert testimony. They do not, however, render Bohn’s opinions unreliable for purposes of Rule 702. This is because courts routinely allow expert testimony linking psychological conditions to tortious conduct, including defamation.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Scofield V. Guillard
    Docket Number: 3:22cv521
    Court Name: United States District Court, Idaho
    Order Date: January 23, 2026
  • Mechanical Engineering Expert’s Testimony about the Defective Lawnmower Excluded

    Mechanical Engineering Expert’s Testimony about the Defective Lawnmower Excluded

    Plaintiffs Jaron and Rachel George (“Plaintiffs”) brought this subrogation action against Defendants Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (“SBD”) and MTD Products, Inc. (“MTD”) for strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claims based on a riding lawnmower fire resulting in substantial damage to Plaintiffs’ home.

    Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude one of Plaintiff’s experts, Mr. Michael Zazula.

    Zazula opined during discovery that Plaintiffs’ lawnmower was in a defective condition because it incorporated a muffler cannister that had become distended and bowed over the years, and a gap had been created between the muffler and deflector, raising temperatures in the engine that resulted in the fire.

    Zazula did not point to any additional evidence of a defect at the time the lawnmower left the hands of Defendants but seems to suggest the distended muffler cannister itself was sufficient to prove a defect.

    Mechanical Engineering Expert Witness

    Michael J. Zazula specializes in applicable codes and standards for mechanical system components and the installation and maintenance of fire suppression systems, gas storage and delivery systems, boilers, HVAC equipment, and other fuel fired appliances.

    With over 20 years of forensic experience, he has conducted over 2,000 investigations.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Zazula’s testing regarding fire causation is not reliable

    The basic premise of Zazula’s opinion is that the distention of the lawnmower’s muffler cannister was deformed, creating a 1/4 inch gap between it and the deflector, and this allowed hot exhaust gases to escape and caused higher temperatures and the ignition of combustible materials in the engine area.

    He proffers that this condition was a design or manufacturing defect of the lawnmower. Defendants argued that the expert testimony Zazula offered to support this premise is not admissible pursuant to Daubert. This Court agreed that Zazula’s report and opinion should not be considered.

    The methodology Zazula used for investigation and testing is Chapter 4 of the National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. The purpose of NFPA 921 “is to establish guidelines and recommendations for the safe and systemic investigation or analysis of fire and explosion incidents.”

    Zazula’s report explained that he performed his testing on a “used” Cub Cadet LTX 1040 lawnmower like the subject 1045 tractor lawnmower, and both contained the same parts. The temperature testing, which used thermal probes, at various parts of the used lawnmower on or near the muffler indicated temperatures ranging anywhere from approximately 400 degrees to the high of 726 degrees. Significantly, however, Zazula admitted that he did not conduct any testing on a lawnmower without a “distended muffler” and a 1/4 inch gap to try to prove or disprove whether the gap did, in fact, increase the temperatures in the engine area.

    Zazula could have fully tested his hypothesis, but he chose not to. Because he failed to conduct testing based on “the methods and procedures of science,” rather than mere “subjective belief,” the Court found that his opinion—that the muffler and the 1/4-inch gap (as a purported defect) caused the fire—was unreliable and inadmissible.

    Zazula’s expert testimony regarding fire causation does not “fit” the case or assist the trier of fact

    For similar reasons why Zazula’s opinion regarding the cause of the fire is not reliable, the Court held that Zazula’s opinion does not “fit” the case or assist the trier of fact. As explained before, it is not based on valid reasoning and reliable methodology. In addition, Zazula’s conclusion that the 1/4 inch gap caused the rise in temperatures is too speculative and subjective, considering he never conducted testing and compared temperatures in the engine of a lawnmower with a distended muffler and 1/4 inch gap and one without. This is especially so when two other experts who conducted the testing found no difference in the engine temperatures between the two.

    Even assuming Zazula is qualified to opine about the cause of the fire in the lawnmower, for the reasons explained above, his opinion is unreliable and unhelpful to the jury and is therefore precluded based on Daubert.

    Zazula is also not qualified as an expert to provide testimony regarding the alleged defective condition of the lawnmower, and the Court will exclude his opinion on that issue

    Zazula proffered that the lawnmower at issue was defective because the distended muffler and the 1/4 inch gap suggested a manufacturing defect or design defect. When asked what evidence supported the existence of a manufacturing defect, Zazula pointed solely to the distended muffler and gap, stating if he took the muffler into MTD, MTD would say “that’s not right.”

    Preliminarily, despite arguably being a fire causation expert, Zazula admitted he is not a design engineer regarding mufflers and exhaust systems, nor is he a warnings expert. Therefore, any of Zazula’s testimony regarding the lawnmower’s purported defects should not be considered. This includes his opinion without more that the distended muffler and 1/4 inch gap somehow was the result of the lawnmower’s defective condition, including a design defect, manufacturing defect, or failure to warn.

    Even if Zazula was qualified to testify about the “defective condition” of the lawnmower, the Court held that his testimony is not reliable. While his report stated, in part, the muffler deformation and gap between the muffler and deflector “exacerbates the ignition of foreseeable combustible material . . . . when the hot exhaust are not properly vented out the side of the deflector as designed [and] intended,” during his deposition he gave no evidence to support or further explain any design defect theory.

    The Court agreed that Zazula applied no methodology or procedures of science to support his opinion of a defect in the Cub Cabet at issue, and his opinion on any defect constitutes unreliable “subjective belief or unsupported speculation.”

    Finally, and for similar reasons, the testimony is not helpful to the jury. Here, the testimony is not sufficiently tied to any of the facts to aid the jury in resolving whether MTD’s lawnmower, in fact, suffered from a defective condition.

    Held

    The Court granted Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Michael Zazula.

    Key Takeaway

    Zazula speculates what possibly caused the fire (in a case where there are several possible fire causes), without providing any specific evidence or testimony to support his opinion that the lawnmower was defective. As a result, the Court determined that any of Zazula’s testimony about any defective condition of the lawnmower should be excluded.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: George V. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
    Docket Number: 2:24cv2035
    Court Name: United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern
    Order Date: January 26, 2026
  • Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on Mental Health Needs

    Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on Mental Health Needs

    Plaintiff William A. White (“White”), a federal inmate, initiated this action alleging nine distinct claims against the United States of America (“United States”) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) (collectively, the “Federal Defendants”), and two distinct claims against BOP inmate Robert Kenneth Decker (“Decker”).

    Dr. Richard M. Samuels conducted an independent psychological examination of White. The Federal Defendants filed a motion to strike Dr. Samuels’ report.

    Psychology Expert Witness

    Richard M. Samuels has nearly fifty years of medical experience. He has conducted 2,500 psychological evaluations, treated thousands of patients, and testified in several states.

    He is licensed in Arizona and New Jersey and is a fellow of the American Psychological Association and two of its divisions.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    The Federal Defendants argued that Samuels is not qualified to be an expert, the report is outdated, and this report is neither helpful nor based on sufficient facts related to the issues in this case.

    As to the first step, the Court found the Federal Defendants’ argument unconvincing. Samuels is a trained psychologist who had been licensed at one time in two different states, giving him general expertise regarding the issue of standard of care for White’s mental health needs. He need not be a specialist in Indiana or hold active registration as a psychologist to render his report useful.

    Moreover, Samuels’ medical opinion is not based on ‘junk science’, but almost fifty years of medical experience. The Federal Defendants pointed out that Samuels is not registered with the American Board of Psychology, however, both the Middle District of Florida and Middle District of Pennsylvania accepted Samuels’ testimony and ruled him qualified to provide an expert opinion. 

    Due to his specific knowledge of the circumstances and experience in the field, Samuels’ testimony and report will assist the Court in understanding the evidence and in determining the facts at issue in this case.

    Held

    The Court denied the Federal Defendants’ motion to strike Dr. Richard Samuels’ report.

    Key Takeaway

    Anyone with relevant expertise enabling him to offer responsible opinion testimony helpful to judge or jury may qualify as an expert witness. In this case, Samuels has established that he has specialized knowledge as required by Rule 702.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: White V. Decker
    Docket Number: 1:22cv2405
    Court Name: United States District Court, Indiana Southern
    Order Date: January 23, 2026
  • Urban Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on Municipal Zoning Practices

    Urban Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on Municipal Zoning Practices

    This case involves the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Defendant, the City of Springfield, prohibited Plaintiffs from operating a home for residents in recovery from drug or alcohol addiction. Defendant claimed their zoning ordinance prohibited the home from operating in an R-SF Zone because it is a “group home” under the City’s zoning code and there is another “group home” located within 1/4 mile. The City classified the home as a group home because the residents who occupy the home are in recovery from drug and alcohol abuse. The City denied Plaintiffs’ request for a reasonable accommodation under the FHA and ADA.

    Plaintiffs brought claims of failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, and disparate impact under the ADA and the FHA.

    Plaintiffs have disclosed three experts in this matter. Stephen D. Villavaso was disclosed as an expert in professional and urban planning. Andrea Stevens is a real estate agent, who Plaintiffs wish to have testify as to the number of residential listings in the City of Springfield during a given timeframe. Finally, John Majer was disclosed to provide expert opinions concerning the operation of residential group homes for substance abuse treatment.

    Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the proposed expert witnesses disclosed by Plaintiffs for the reason that their proposed testimony did not meet the requirements set forth in Rule 702.

    Urban Planning Expert Witness

    Stephen D. Villavaso, J.D., FAICP is a professional urban and regional planner and a land use/zoning attorney with over forty years of experience in city and regional planning, environmental regulations, land use law, public administration and zoning.

    Villavaso’s degrees include a Bachelor of Science in Economics and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning, both from the University of New Orleans, and a Juris Doctorate from Loyola University of New Orleans. He has served the Louisiana Chapter of the American Planning Association, with thirty-five years of service to the APA — receiving both the Chapter’s Leadership and Distinguished Service Awards along the way. He is the Past-President of the Louisiana Chapter of the American Planning Association.

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

    Real Estate Expert Witness

    Andrea Stevens is a real estate agent affiliated with Keller Williams Realty Elevate in Joplin, Missouri. Stevens has been practicing as a real estate professional since 2021 and is licensed by the Missouri Real Estate Commission.

    Discover more cases with Andrea Stevens as an expert witness by ordering her comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Psychology Expert Witness

    John M. Majer, Ph.D. is a full Professor of Psychology at Harry S. Truman College and a Consultant for the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, in Chicago, Illinois.

    Majer has extensive research experience in the field of clinical-community psychology, mostly involving persons with substance use disorders and sober living homes.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendant argued that the experts’ opinions are not based on reliable methodology, are not supported by sufficient facts or data, and are based upon theories that have not been tested.

    Stephen Villavaso is an expert in professional and urban planning, who offers opinions on municipal zoning practices, the City’s application of its ordinances, and the compatibility of the spacing requirements with accepted planning principles and DOJ/HUD guidance. Andrea Stevens is a licensed real estate professional, who analyzes residential housing market conditions in Springfield, including the availability of suitable properties during the relevant timeframe. Dr. John Majer is an expert in the operation of residential recovery housing, who provides insight into the therapeutic and operational requirements of recovery homes, as well as the practical implications of spacing requirements on their viability.

    This Court agreed that the arguments raised by Defendant’s motion go to credibility and the weight of the testimony which are subjects that may be raised during cross-examination.

    However, federal courts should limit their review to the materials that were presented to the local land use board while considering reasonable accommodation claims, except in circumstances where the board prevents applicants from presenting sufficient information. This general rule however, does not apply to disparate impact and disparate treatment discrimination claims.

    The Court found that the Plaintiffs were not prevented from providing the information they now seek to present. Plaintiffs were invited to resubmit their request to the proper individual, and asked to address several issues, which they chose to ignore when making their resubmission. Thus, the expert reports will be considered in the disparate impact and disparate treatment claims. The expert reports will, however, be excluded in the failure to accommodate claim.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses Stephen D. Villavaso, Andrea Stevens, and Dr. John Majer.

    Key Takeaway

    Plaintiffs’ experts may be relevant under Rule 702 and at this time, there is no basis to exclude them under Daubert. However, the Court excluded Plaintiffs’ expert testimony in the failure to accommodate claim because it was not presented to the City as part of Plaintiffs’ request for accommodation.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: New Beginning Sanctuary V. City Of Springfield, Missouri
    Docket Number: 6:23cv3336
    Court Name: United States District Court, Missouri Western
    Order Date: January 22, 2026

  • Structural Engineering Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Chimney Collapse

    Structural Engineering Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Chimney Collapse

    Plaintiff Haverford Square Properties, LLC owned a building in Philadelphia insured by Defendant Trisura Specialty Insurance Company (“the Property”). The Property’s chimney collapsed and Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff’s full claim. Plaintiff then sued Defendant for breach of contract.

    During the litigation, Plaintiff consulted an expert, Tim Sass, who concluded that all of Plaintiff’s claimed loss was caused by the bricks that fell during the chimney collapse.

    Defendant disagreed and filed a motion to preclude this expert’s testimony, arguing that his conclusions do not satisfy the minimum reliability requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

    Structural Engineering Expert Witness 

    Timothy Sass, MSCE, PE is a structural engineer with over thirty years of experience in residential and commercial construction.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Sass concluded that the force of the impact from the falling chimney bricks pushed the rear wall out of plumb, cracking multiple joists and creating the risk of collapse. Sass never visited the Property to conduct an in-person inspection, but reviewed photographs, insurance letters, and other documents to form an opinion about the cause of the damage.

    1. Sufficient Facts or Data

    First, Defendant argued that Sass relied on insufficient facts and data because he was retained three years after the reported loss and after the Property had been fully demolished, so he never actually visited the Property for an inspection. The fact that Sass never visited the Property did not necessarily render his testimony unreliable.

    Second, Defendant argued that Sass used a single photograph of cracked joists at the Property to reach his conclusions and was unable to identify other photographs he used in his review. This is a mischaracterization. Sass’ report stated that he reviewed several documents to inform his opinion, including the complaint in this action, the City of Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspections (“L&I”) Notice and Order, an abatement work invoice, a collapse letter, the deposition transcript of Defendant’s representative, the insurance denial letter, Defendant’s expert report, and “photographs.”

    Third, Defendant argued that Sass’ report is based on the erroneous belief that L&I inspected the Property prior to the date of loss. Defendant is correct that, in his deposition testimony, Sass often referenced his mistaken belief that L&I inspected the Property prior to the date of loss and did not observe any damage to the rear wall. Sass cited this mistaken belief as one basis for his conclusion that the damage to that wall occurred because of the subsequent chimney collapse. But that is not the only piece of information upon which Sass formed his opinion. Indeed, every time he made this point about L&I, it was preceded by or following an explanation of the other facts and principles he relied upon to reach his conclusion.

    The Court concluded that Sass’ reliance on one erroneous piece of information did not render the rest of the facts and data informing his opinion unreliable.

    2. Reliable Principles and Methods

    Defendant also criticized Sass’ principles and methodology by arguing that he failed to consider crucial pieces of information: (1) the effect of the removal of mural stabilization braces from the Property prior to the loss; (2) the pre-loss photographs of the joists that Sass concluded were cracked due to the chimney collapse; and (3) L&I’s finding in its Order that the rear wall was damaged and in danger of collapse.

    Plaintiff conceded that Sass did not consider the effect of the removal of mural stabilization braces from the Property when issuing his report. But Sass testified at his deposition that this piece of information would not change his analysis of the cause of the damage to the rear wall in any way.

    Again, Defendant is incorrect that Sass failed to consider pre-loss photographs of the cracked joist. He testified to reviewing and considering several pre-loss photographs. Defendant is also incorrect that Sass failed to consider L&I’s finding in its Order that the rear wall was damaged and in danger of collapse or mention that finding in his report. Sass testified that he reviewed both the L&I Notice and Order before drafting his report and did not explicitly mention the Order because, in his view, the Order and Notice say essentially the same thing.

    The Court found that Defendant’s criticisms of Sass’ methodology were not disqualifying under Rule 702. Defendant is not saying that Sass failed to articulate any methodology used to render his opinion.

    Rather, Defendant’s criticisms amount to disputes about whether Sass overlooked certain pieces of information that he should have considered. These criticisms are more probative of “the weight the opinion should be afforded, rather than the reliability” of Sass’ testimony.

    3. Reliable Application of Principles and Methods

    Defendant’s most fundamental criticism of Sass is that his conclusions do not stem from a reliable application of principles and methods to the facts of this case. Defendant argued that Sass’ conclusion that the chimney collapse caused the damage to the rear wall is “directed from an incomplete understanding of a single photograph, subsequently extrapolated into a final ‘opinion’ through speculation and conjecture.”

    In both his report and deposition, Sass explained how he reached his conclusion that the chimney collapse caused the damage to the Property. He explained that the cracks in the floor joists were not oxidized, meaning they were likely fresh, which was consistent with a more recent cause of damage, like the falling masonry. Sass also explained that the location of the cracks supports his conclusion because they were located near the center of the span. The center is “the most highly stressed part of the joists,” so that is where he would expect to see damage from a chimney collapse. Sass also explained that the Property’s older building date supported his conclusions.

    The Court found that these explanations helped Sass “bridge the gap” between his conclusions and his methods. Sass can describe to a jury what information he reviewed and explain how that information led him to his opinion about the cause of the damage to the Property.

    Held

    The Court denied Defendant’s motion to preclude the testimony of Tim Sass because his conclusions meet the minimum reliability requirements of Rule 702. 

    Key Takeaway

    An expert need not physically inspect or examine the subject of his or her testimony and may use second-hand materials and experience to draw reasonable inferences.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Haverford Square Properties, LLC V. Trisura Specialty Insurance Company
    Docket Number: 2:23cv1847
    Court Name: United States District Court, Pennsylvania Eastern
    Order Date: January 23, 2026
  • Construction Expert’s Testimony on Insurance Policy Application Excluded

    Construction Expert’s Testimony on Insurance Policy Application Excluded

    This case arises from an insurance coverage dispute regarding damage to Plaintiff O’Reilly Hotel Partners–Champions Circle, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) hotel complex in Fort Worth, Texas (the “Property”). The Property consists of various buildings, including a hotel tower, a conference center, and a golf clubhouse. The case involves multiple insurance policies and multiple insurance claims stemming from events that occurred on different dates.

    Defendant Continental Casualty Insurance Company challenged the testimony of Plaintiff’s retained expert witnesses, Mike Krismer and Michael Barclay.

    Construction Expert Witnesses

    Mike Thomas Krismer, CIEC, has over 45 years of experience in structural repair and building renovation of residential, commercial, and public buildings. His primary focus has been water damage as it relates to the building envelope and structure.

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

    Michael C. Barclay is a general contractor and cost estimator. Barclay has knowledge of the condition of the Project. He has experience and expertise in construction, bidding, and construction scheduling and sequencing issues associated with the Project, as well as cost estimating for the repair of this and similar buildings and sites.

    Fortify your strategy by reviewing a Challenge Study detailing grounds for excluding Michael Barclay’s expert testimony.

    Discussion by the Court

    Mike Krismer

    Plaintiff designated Krismer as an expert on water mitigation and water damage, stating that he is expected to testify “regarding the industry standard for inspecting, documenting, moisture mapping, and scoping remediation and repair of water-damaged materials.” He was also designated as an expert regarding the “reasonable and necessary scope of repairs required by the losses in question.”

    Analysis

    First, Defendant argued that under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Krismer is not qualified as an expert on insurance contract interpretation. Second, Defendant argued that Krismer did not support his opinions regarding the amount and cost of repairs with the necessary underlying facts, data, and verifiable methodology.

    Krismer’s CV lists his qualifications regarding water mitigation and water damage, and Plaintiff proffered Krismer as an expert for that purpose. Despite this, Krismer’s expert report contains opinions about what Defendant should pay under the insurance policy based on his interpretation of the policy’s terms and coverage. Because Krismer is not qualified as an expert on insurance policy application or interpretation, the Court determined that his testimony on that subject is inadmissible.

    Krismer’s report included a publication on how to evaluate electrical equipment exposed to water damage, images that appear to identify roof leaks with labels such as “identified as new” or “identified as old,” and a final report concluding that Cavalry Construction’s work was defective because a list of repairs needs to be completed.

    The report did not explain what methodology, if any, was used in generating these images. It also did not explain what “identified as new” and “identified as old” mean, or what they are new or old in reference to. Specifically, it was unclear whether the reference point for the new/old distinction was a storm that Plaintiff claimed caused the damage or Cavalry Construction’s allegedly defective construction.

    The Court held that Krismer’s testimony is inadmissible because it is vague and not supported by adequate underlying facts, data, or methodology.

    Michael Barclay

    Defendant argued that Barclay’s opinions are supported solely with an estimate of purported repair costs and a repair estimate, which, standing alone, failed to satisfy the requirements of an expert report under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B).

    Barclay’s report consisted of two-page repair cost estimate, a table of permit fees, and a chart adding contingency fees. However, there was no narrative as to the methodology utilized by Barclay in preparing the estimate and no basis for the total included in the estimates—just various unit prices and line items included in the estimate. Because Barclay’s report did not include the basis for his opinions or the facts and data that were considered, it did not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i) and Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(ii).

    Having concluded that Plaintiff did not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B) the Court now determines in its discretion whether to strike Barclay’s report and opinions or to impose some lesser sanction, like leave to amend. Here, trial is in less than four weeks, discovery has closed, and Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s expert challenges after the Court required expedited briefing. As a result, the Court determined that Barclay’s expert testimony is inadmissible and Barclay is precluded from testifying as an expert witness in this matter.

    Held

    The Court granted Defendant’s motions to strike or limit the opinions and testimony of Mike Krismer and Michael Barclay.

    Key Takeaway

    Defendants are correct that Krismer’s report failed to indicate what facts and what methodology or approach underlies the opinions. Reliability considerations such as these are particularly important in a case like this where part of the dispute depends upon whether Defendant used the right methodology to evaluate water damage.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: O’Reilly Hotel Partners-Champions Circle, LLC V. Allied Property And Casualty Insurance Company
    Docket Number: 4:25cv165
    Court Name: United States District Court, Texas Northern
    Order Date: December 18, 2025
  • Education Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Best Practices for Teaching ESL Students

    Education Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Best Practices for Teaching ESL Students

    This is a religious discrimination case arising from Plaintiff Sudoos Hamood’s termination from Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (“ACCESS”).

    Ms. Hamood, Plaintiff, began working with ACCESS, Defendant, in 2017. In 2021, Ms. Hamood took on a new role at ACCESS and began working as an English teacher during the COVID-19 pandemic. Shortly thereafter, on October 8, 2021, Ms. Hamood’s employment with ACCESS was terminated due to conflict over ACCESS’s policy which required English teachers to show their faces while teaching virtually.

    ACCESS has submitted the expert opinion of Ms. Anita Linder Caref in support of the proposition that viewing a teacher’s face is a best practice in English language instruction.

    Plaintiff argued that Caref is not sufficiently qualified to offer expert testimony because she lacked the requisite experience and knowledge required under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Plaintiff asserted that Caref has never been certified as an ESL specialist, has not conducted peer-reviewed research on ESL methodology, and has never before served as an expert witness.

    Education Expert Witness

    Ms. Anita Linder Caref has a master’s degree in English/Language and Literacy from The City College of the City University of New York and extensive experience teaching English.

    She has written curricula for every level of Adult Basic Education (ABE) and High School Equivalency (HSE) preparation classes at the City Colleges of Chicago; each curriculum helps students improve their reading and writing skills as they learn social studies and science.

    Caref earned a B.S. in Elementary Education with majors in Reading Certification and Bilingual Certification, as well as a master’s degree in English/Language and Literacy.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    The Court concluded that Caref is qualified to serve as an expert witness. Caref had an extensive, 45-year career as an ESL instructor, which provided her with the experience and specialize knowledge necessary to testify about the best practices for teaching ESL students. She has taught students from more than 25 countries — including several Arab countries such as Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria — and she has also taught in remote-learning environments. Her practical experience is complemented by educational credentials that further support her qualification to testify as an expert.

    Plaintiff’s challenges to Caref’s experience and methodology can be addressed on cross-examination. At this moment, however, the Court found that her opinions are the product of reliable principles and methods and are based on her education and professional training, decades of experience teaching ESL students, designing curricula, and supervising other ESL instructors.

    The Court is not convinced that her testimony will be duplicative. Although she reaches the same conclusion as Defendant’s other expert, she does so through a different approach. Her testimony could very well assist the jury by providing an educator’s perspective, rather than the more academic or scientific approach.

    The Court is persuaded by Defendant’s argument that the issues raised by Plaintiff relates more to credibility instead of qualification. What Plaintiff challenges goes to the weight of Caref’s testimony on the stand, not her ability to satisfy the threshold requirements for expert status.

    Held

    The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Anita Linder Caref’s testimony and concluded that she is qualified to serve as an expert witness.

    Key Takeaway

    Caref possesses sufficient educational credentials, and her opinions are the product of reliable principles and methods grounded in her education, professional training, and decades of experience teaching ESL students, designing curricula, and supervising other instructors.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Hamood V. Arab Community Center For Economic And Social Services
    Docket Number: 2:23cv10270
    Court Name: United States District Court, Michigan Eastern
    Order Date: January 20, 2026
  • Accounting Expert’s Lost-Opportunity Testimony Admitted

    Accounting Expert’s Lost-Opportunity Testimony Admitted

    Plaintiffs Joshua Cane Jellison and Jessica Marie Jellison (collectively “Plaintiffs”) alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, against PHH Mortgage Corporation, the assignee and servicer of their mortgage loan.

    Plaintiffs claimed that they entered into a COVID-19 forbearance, which caused them to accrue past due payments. According to Plaintiffs, PHH offered to resolve the past due payments by way of a Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) COVID-19 Recovery Standalone Partial Claim Mortgage (“PCM”), through which the FHA would have purchased Plaintiffs’ outstanding debt and secured it with a second position mortgage. Plaintiffs contended the PCM would have paused any monthly payments until the mortgaged property was sold or the mortgage serviced by PHH was paid in full or refinanced. They alleged that PHH did not timely approve Plaintiffs’ entry into the PCM and instead threatened foreclosure. PHH believed it properly rejected Plaintiffs’ applications for the PCM because Plaintiffs did not meet all of the requirements. Plaintiffs were eventually approved for the PCM and did not lose their home through foreclosure.

    Plaintiffs alleged generally that they incurred damages because their credit score was substantially reduced which severely affected their ability to run their business.

    When Plaintiffs produced the report of their economic expert, Key Coleman, Defendant PHH Mortgage Corp. filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Coleman.

    Accounting Expert Witness

    Arthur Key Foster Coleman, CPA, CFA is Executive Director and Founder of Litigation Economic & Forensic Consulting Group LLC. Coleman has more than 30 years of experience providing business and financial analysis. His focus is on forensic accounting, commercial disputes, damages and expert testimony.

    Coleman serves full-time as Assistant Professor of Business at Rosemont College.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Relying entirely on Jellison’s statements regarding his existing and future business ventures, Coleman concluded that Plaintiffs suffered economic damages in the amount of $322,608 from the alleged loss of the opportunity to expand Plaintiffs’ business by purchasing additional equipment.

    In its challenge to strike Coleman’s testimony at trial, PHH argued that his opinions are “inherently unreliable” because “his economic damages calculations are predicated entirely on speculative and unverified information provided to him by Mr. Jellison.”

    More specifically, PHH argued that Coleman’s opinions are based upon Joshua’s unsupported and unverified statements regarding (1) his future business plans; (2) the market conditions implicated by those plans; and (3) the viability and potential profits of those “purported plans.” PHH stressed that Coleman bases his opinion solely on what Jellison told him about demand for expanding his business.

    Analysis

    This Court and others, however, have noted that an owner of a business who participates in day-to-day operations is qualified to offer an opinion as to lost profits based on the company’s actual operating history.

    The historical business information supplied by Jellison and relied upon by Coleman is based upon Jellison’s personal knowledge acquired from the day-to-day operations of East Coast.

    As such, Coleman was justified in relying upon his discussions with Jellison, in conjunction with tax returns and other documents which corroborated Jellison’s representations concerning lost profits relating to expansion of his business.

    Moreover, because Coleman’s report relies upon data from tax returns for years 2021 through 2023, which reveals not only sales revenue but also depreciation and amortization of equipment needed for the addition of new crews in 2022 and 2023, the data is relevant to the facts of the case.

    Here, the information provided by Joshua Jellison is corroborated by East Coast’s tax returns.

    Other documents Coleman relied upon include those reflecting the dramatic drop in Jellison’s credit score; 2022 Depreciation and Amortization Report; Automobile Schedule for East Coast Equipment; Refusal for Small Business Line of Credit from PNC Bank; Delinquent Tax Reminder from Westmoreland County Tax Claim Bureau; 2019-2023 Tax Returns of Partnership Income with supporting documentation; and other documents.

    Tax records include information relating to equipment costs when adding the second and third crews in 2022 and 2023. Coleman outlined the methodology he used based on information he received from Jellison and supported by this documentation. Thus, there is an adequate factual foundation for Coleman’s opinions.

    This factual foundation establishes a clear “fit” connecting Plaintiffs’ alleged damages with Coleman’s opinion. The cases relied upon by PHH simply do not carry the day.

    Held

    The Court denied PHH Mortgage Corp.’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of expert witness Key Coleman.

    Key Takeaway

    In its discretion and considering all facts and circumstances, the Court found by preponderance of the evidence that Coleman’s report was supported by “good grounds,” and relevant such that it will assist the trier of fact. Coleman relied upon business tax returns, which were prepared by an outside accountant, and reviewed by the IRS. Coleman was able to corroborate Joshua Jellison’s representations from these documents. PHH, however, may conduct a thorough and vigorous cross examination of Coleman and Joshua Jellison at trial concerning future business plans and the market conditions supporting those plans.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Jellison V. PHH Mortgage Corporation
    Docket Number: 2:23cv739
    Court Name: United States District Court, Pennsylvania Western
    Order Date: January 20, 2026

  • Expert Testimony on Inadequate Cargo Packaging Admitted

    Expert Testimony on Inadequate Cargo Packaging Admitted

    This consolidated action concerns damage to two separate cargos of medical imaging devices shipped by air from the United States to China. The cargo at issue in the first-filed action was an MRI machine, while the cargo at issue in the later-filed action consisted of two CT scanners.

    Plaintiffs Indemnity Insurance Company of North America and Huatai Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Ltd. filed a motion to exclude the opinion testimony of Defendant Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.’s expert David Stopak.

    Stopak opined that the cargo was inadequately packaged before it was tendered to Expeditors.

    Packaging Expert Witness

    David Stopak is a seasoned specialist in the packaging for international transport of sensitive medical devices, and has actually performed such packaging work for Plaintiffs’ subrogor, GE Medical.

    He is a Graduate of DeVry Institute of Technology, graduating in 1985 with a degree in Electronic Engineer Technology (EET). Stopak is the President of A. Imaging Solutions, Inc., a privately-owned corporation that markets and supplies new and pre-owned radiology equipment to the medical community and provides regional service coverage. He has been in the business since 1992 and has a profound understanding of pre-owned and new medical equipment of all modalities.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Federal Rule of Evidence 702 obligates a district court to “ensure that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand.”

    The Court found that the motion to exclude presented arguments going to the weight that Stopak’s testimony should be given, rather than its admissibility, and the Court will have an opportunity to consider those arguments at the bench trial.

    Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude, without prejudice to their ability to challenge Stopak’s testimony at trial.

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of David Stopak.

    Key Takeaway

    Where, as here, the case will proceed to a bench trial rather than a jury trial, the Court’s “gatekeeping function” is less critical, because the Court “can make its own credibility determinations about expert testimony in the full context of trial and accord the testimony the weight it warrants.”

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Indemnity Insurance Company Of North America V. Expeditors International Of Washington Inc.
    Docket Number: 2:23cv507
    Court Name: United States District Court, Washington Western
    Order Date: January 16, 2026