Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Defamation

  • 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
  • Psychology Expert’s Testimony on Consumer Perceptions of Online Posts Excluded

    Psychology Expert’s Testimony on Consumer Perceptions of Online Posts Excluded

    This case arises out of an ongoing dispute between Plaintiffs LoanStreet, Inc. (“LoanStreet”) and LoanStreet CEO Ian Lampl (“Lampl,” and together with LoanStreet, “Plaintiffs”) and a former employee, Defendant Wyatt Troia (“Troia”).

    LoanStreet, a online platform which provides services to help clients share, manage, and originate loans, hired Troia to work as a software engineer in February 2019.  In June 2020, LoanStreet terminated his employment. Troia subsequently posted disparaging statements about LoanStreet, Lampl, and other LoanStreet employees on various websites, including Glassdoor.com and Reddit.com.

    Troia also purchased advertisements on Google that would appear when users searched the following terms or phrases: “LoanStreet”; “Loan Street”; “LoanStreet Glassdoor”; “LoanStreet careers”; “LoanStreet engineering”; “LoanStreet software engineering”; “What it’s like to work at LoanStreet”; and “LoanStreet Jobs.” Each of Troia’s Google advertisements began with the heading: “LoanStreet horror story” and linked to a Reddit post he had made, titled: “Name and Shame: LoanStreet (NY) cheated me out of equity.”

    Plaintiffs brought suit against Troia, asserting claims for breach of contract, defamation and unfair competition.

    Troia filed a motion to exclude Plaintiffs’ proposed expert, Allen Adamson while Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude Troia’s proposed experts, Deepak Sabiki and Lamarcus Bolton.

    Branding Expert Witness

    Allen P. Adamson is a co-founder and managing partner of Metaforce, a marketing and brand consultancy, and he is an Adjunct Professor and guest lecturer at New York University’s Stern School of Business. He received his B.S. from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University and his MBA from New York University’s Stern School of Business.

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

    Forensic Accounting Expert Witness

    Deepak Sabiki is a principal at Sabiki Consulting LLC, and he serves as a consulting and testifying expert in “forensic accounting, compliance, and litigation matters.” Sabiki received his B.S. in Finance and Economic Theory Analysis from New York University’s Stern School of Business.

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

    Psychology Expert Witness

     Dr. Lamarcus R. Bolton is a Principal at Insightful Holdings, a research firm based in Los Angeles, California. He attended St. Louis University, where he received his B.A. in Psychology and his M.S. and PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    a. Troia’s Daubert Motion

    Troia filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ proposed expert, Allen Adamson.

    In his thirty-six-page report, Adamson evaluated the damage sustained to LoanStreet’s brand as a result of Defendant’s defamatory statements, focusing on the impact of his advertisements and posts on the company’s brand, and specifically on its ability to recruit software engineers and other prospective employees, attract and retain investors, and appeal to customers. Adamson further assessed the reputational damage sustained by Lampl’s “personal brand” due to Defendant’s statements.

    He ultimately determined that LoanStreet would need to spend a total of $3,700,000 over at least two years to repair its reputation with software engineers, prospective customers, and investors, and that Lampl would be required to spend between $750,000 and $2,500,000 over the next three to five years in order to adequately restore his reputation and safeguard his future career prospects.

    Troia claimed that Adamson’s testimony should be excluded as “irrelevant, unreliable, and prejudicial” and raised a variety of concerns centering primarily upon the assertion that Adamson’s report did not adequately establish causation by isolating the harm caused by Defendant’s defamatory statements.

    He also asserted that Adamson’s damages calculation impermissibly accounts for the republication of Defendant’s defamatory statements by third parties, which Troia contended is speculative and resulted in an “artificially inflated” damages amount.

    As Plaintiffs noted, broad general damages are permitted in cases involving defamation per se, and Adamson’s testimony is thus squarely relevant to those claims.

    The Court held that Troia’s remaining concerns regarding Adamson’s report and proposed testimony primarily concerned the weight of his testimony, rather than its admissibility, and are best addressed on cross examination.

    b. Plaintiffs’ Daubert Motion

    i. Deepak Sabiki

    Sabiki reviewed Adamson’s expert report and, after reviewing additional documents in this case, issued a ten-page rebuttal report in which he concluded that Adamson’s report is “speculative and not reliable, because it fails to tie the wrongful acts of Troia to the economic harm that LoanStreet and Lampl allegedly suffered.” 

    Plaintiffs contended that Sabiki’s report should be precluded because: (i) he has no expertise in branding and reputational harm or repair; (ii) he did not perform his own analysis or proffer a contrary damages calculation; and (iii) his proposed testimony presents arguments that counsel could make equally well without a witness.

    As an experienced consulting and testifying expert in litigation and forensic accounting with a degree in finance and economic theory analysis, the Court held that Sabiki is qualified to testify as a rebuttal expert regarding Adamson’s analysis of the economic damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendant’s defamatory posts. Moreover, Defendant clarified that Sabiki is testifying solely as a rebuttal expert.

    Although Plaintiffs contended that Sabiki’s analysis consisted of observations that “can be observed readily by jurors and/or brought out in cross examination without benefitting from any aid by an expert,” they have not raised sufficient concerns regarding Sabiki’s qualifications or the reliability and relevance of his testimony. On the contrary, Sabiki’s opinion raised questions regarding Adamson’s analysis and methodologies, centering primarily on his failure to perform an economic causation analysis and a comparative damages analysis, as well as the data and assumptions underlying Adamson’s report. Although Plaintiffs may disagree with Sabiki’s conclusions, the Court held that those disagreements are best addressed on cross-examination.

    ii. Dr. Lamarcus Bolton

    Bolton conducted two surveys intended to “analyze public perceptions of the Defendant’s online statements regarding” LoanStreet and “gauge how these perceptions influenced potential employees’ and potential customers’ decisions to work for or engage in business with LoanStreet.”

    In his 137-page report, Bolton concluded, inter alia, that the survey results suggested that “the vast majority of the readers” of Troia’s posts “did not think the posts accused LoanStreet of breaking the law when it withheld equity compensation from Troia.”

    The primary issue with Bolton’s survey and report, as Plaintiffs noted, is its focus on whether respondents believed that Defendant had accused Plaintiffs of “breaking the law.” The use of this phrase appeared to be designed to determine whether the survey respondents believed defendant’s posts conveyed defamatory meaning. However, “breaking the law” carries an indisputably criminal connotation, and its use is entirely inappropriate in a survey carried out to assist in the determination of damages owed in a civil litigation. 

    Further, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs that both surveys impermissibly attempted to relitigate the question of liability and Defendant’s intent in crafting his posts by asking whether it “is possible” that the author of the posts “did not intend to claim LoanStreet broke the law” or was “motivated . . . by a desire to protect fellow workers” and asking whether the author’s post was “useful to public debate about workers’ rights.” Moreover, the fact that Bolton’s survey examining Defendant’s Reddit post did not include all the defamatory statements contained in the original post rendered that survey unusable.

    Additionally, both surveys are less reliable because they failed to exclude survey respondents with prior knowledge of Defendant’s posts regarding Plaintiffs or who had pre-existing perceptions regarding LoanStreet.

    Held

    • The Court denied Troia’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert Allen Adamson.
    • The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Troia’s experts with respect to Deepak Sabiki but granted it with respect to Dr. Lamarcus Bolton.

    Key Takeaway:

    While each methodological flaw, standing alone, may not mandate exclusion, the cumulative effect of the methodological flaws so diminishes the reliability and probative value of the survey that its exclusion is warranted under Rules 403 and 702.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Loanstreet Inc. Et Al V. Troia
    Docket Number: 1:21cv6166
    Court Name: United States District Court, New York Southern
    Order Date; September 03, 2025
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Witness’ Testimony About Medical Necessity of Certain Procedures Performed Admitted

    Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Witness’ Testimony About Medical Necessity of Certain Procedures Performed Admitted

    In this defamation lawsuit, Plaintiff Mahendra Amin (“Amin”), a doctor, alleged that Defendant Nbcuniversal Media, LLC aired several broadcast segments on MSNBC which included multiple false and defamatory statements about Amin and his medical treatment of detainees at Irwin County Detention Center (ICDC). To support his case, Amin retained Eldridge Bills to review the medical records of the Plaintiff’s patients and provided opinions on the medical necessity of various procedures Amin had performed.

    The Defendant filed a motion to exclude Eldridge Bills’ testimony as it was claimed to be unreliable and inconsistent with the Daubert Standard and Rule 702.

    Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Witness

    Elbridge Frederick Bills II, M.D., F.A.C.O.G., is an expert in obstetrics and gynecology based in Georgia. He holds medical licenses in both Florida and Georgia and was certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. He earned his medical degree from Emory University School of Medicine in 1989. Afterwards, he completed his residency at the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine in 2001. He also finished a fellowship at Emory University School of Medicine. At present, he practices in Alpharetta, Georgia.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Bills’ Medical Knowledge and Experience Support His Opinions

    Defendant challenged Bills’ methodology, arguing it lacked reliability. They contended that Bills failed to apply his specific experience to this case or support his opinions with medical records.

    Moreover, they noted that Bills did not reference medical literature or guidelines in his report or deposition. They argued that his opinions were merely assertions without supporting evidence.

    In contrast, Plaintiff asserted that Bills’ methodology was reliable due to his 30 years of experience as an OB/GYN. His previous experience as an expert witness in five trials was also highlighted.

    To establish reliability, Bills needed to demonstrate a clear connection between his experience and his opinions. He did so by explaining how his OB/GYN background informed his analysis. His report listed his qualifications and detailed his review of 69 patient records, focusing on the medical appropriateness of procedures.

    Defendant’s objections to Bills’ methodology did not justify excluding his testimony. They argued that Bills’ opinions lacked data, methodology, or study, characterizing them as mere assertions. However, Bills utilized his OB/GYN experience and medical knowledge to review patient records and link his expertise to his opinions. He referenced relevant medical literature and studies during his deposition. The Court found that Defendant’s issues were about the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility. As such, challenges to expert testimony should be addressed through cross-examination, not exclusion. Bills’ opinions were deemed to be based on a reliable methodology.

    Bills’ Opinions Are Based on Sufficient Facts and Data

    Bills’ expert report claimed that every procedure by Amin was “medically indicated as documented by various modalities including the history and physical, preoperative ultrasound evaluation, intraoperative surgical images documentation, and final pathology.” Defendant argued that Bills did not specify which modalities he considered in his review of each of the 69 patient records. Defendant also pointed to Bills’ deposition testimony, in which he acknowledged some ultrasound images and surgical images were either low resolution or not clear enough for him to conduct an independent evaluation. 

    The Court found Bills’ opinions are based on a reliable methodology, in that they are based on sufficient data and the “modalities” he considered are sufficiently discernible. He provided sufficient detail about how he applied his experience to his medical records review and he discussed individual patient considerations and modalities throughout his deposition testimony.

    Additionally, in Bills’ supplemental chart, he lists each patient chart reviewed, relevant preoperative notes for each patient, and the corresponding treatment and procedure for each patient and notes any missing documentation for each patient chart.

    Bills Provides Sufficient Analysis to Support His Opinions

    Defendant argued Bills provided no analysis supporting his opinion every surgery Amin performed was “medically indicated” and, therefore, his methodology is unreliable. Defendant argued Bills included generalized statements about why a doctor could perform these surgeries in his expert report, but he does not explain how each patient’s medical records led him to conclude the surgery Amin performed was medically indicated. 

    The Court held that Bills reviewed a collection of patient medical records and offered a categorical opinion about all of the procedures on those patients. Bills explained how (i.e., the methodology) he formed that opinion. Defendant has failed to show anything unreliable about that methodology. Defendant, instead, contended Bills was required to explain how he assessed each and every procedure in order for Bills’ overall methodology to be deemed reliable.

    Bills’ Presumptions Do Not Warrant Exclusion

    Defendant argued that Bills’ methodology was unreliable due to several inadequately explained assumptions. Specifically, Defendant noted Bills’ presumptions about Plaintiff’s patients being high-risk and indigent, consenting to surgery, and facing possible deportation without notice. Defendant also contended that Bills presumed cysts were removed because they caused pain, despite some patients’ cysts being undocumented.

    In response, Plaintiff argued that these assumptions were reasonable given Bills’ experience and the medical records reviewed. Plaintiff asserted that reasonable inferences are acceptable in expert testimony and that Defendant could address these issues through cross-examination.

    The Court found that Bills’ assumptions were based on reasonable inferences drawn from available data and personal experience. Although the assumptions might not be entirely correct, they provided a reasonable factual basis for Bills’ opinions. Therefore, the Court concluded that Bills’ methodology was reliable and did not warrant exclusion.

    Held

    The Court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude the opinions of Plaintiff’s obstetrics and gynecology expert witness, Eldridge Bills.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court denied Defendant’s motion to exclude Eldridge Bills’ testimony, finding it reliable under the Daubert standard. Although Defendant argued Bills’ methodology lacked specificity and relied on inadequate assumptions, the Court determined his expert opinions were supported by his extensive OB/GYN experience and medical records review.

    Bills had categorized patient cases and provided explanations in his reports and deposition, despite some generalizations. The Court viewed the Defendant’s concerns as issues of weight rather than admissibility, suitable for cross-examination rather than exclusion. Bills’ reasonable inferences and thorough analysis were deemed sufficient to support his opinions.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Amin V. Nbcuniversal Media, Llc
    Docket Number: 5:21cv56
    Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Waycross Division
    Order Date: July 11, 2024
  • Drug Enforcement Expert Witness Allowed To Testify Despite Not Being A Pharmacist

    Drug Enforcement Expert Witness Allowed To Testify Despite Not Being A Pharmacist

    Manes is a pharmacy that has served the Van Buren, Arkansas community for nearly 40 years. AmerisourceBergen is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceutical products, including controlled substances. This dispute arises from AmerisourceBergen’s decision to restrict its sale of controlled substances to Manes. Manes sued AmerisourceBergen for breach of contract, tortious interference with Manes’ business expectancies, defamation, and compelled self-defamation.

    Both parties sought to exclude some of their opponent’s experts. Manes sought to exclude the testimony of James Place and Deborah Komoroski. AmerisourceBergen sought to exclude the testimony of Jack Teitelman. 

    Drug Enforcement Expert Witnesses

    James Place has 27 years of experience working for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration and nearly ten years of doing compliance work in the private sector.

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

    Deborah Komorski works for Cencora, Inc., which is AmerisourceBergen’s parent company. She has eight years’ experience as a pharmacist, twenty-five years’ experience as a Drug Control Agent for the State of Connecticut, and thirteen years’ experience doing compliance and diversion control work for private companies. 

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

    Jack Teitelmean worked for the DEA as a special agent for 13 years, and he has worked in other law enforcement capacities for an additional 13 years. For the last seven years, he has worked for a private company which he describes as “a leading Veterinary Industry provider of DEA-compliance and controlled-substance anti-diversion solutions.” 

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

    Discussion by the Court

    James Place

    Manes argued that the Court should exclude Place’s opinions because he was not a pharmacist and his expert report contained opinions about “the practice of pharmacy and how a pharmacist fulfills his/her corresponding responsibility.” Additionally, Manes argued that Place should be excluded under Arkansas law because he could not judge whether a medical professional had deviated from the accepted standard of care.

    The Court held that the Arkansas statute titled “Plaintiff’s burden of proof” Manes relied on did not apply to this case because Manes is the Plaintiff here and this is not an action for negligence. Also, the statute’s definition of medical care provider does not include a drug distributor like AmerisourceBergen. Moreover, Manes has alleged injuries arising out of AmerisourceBergen’s decision to stop selling it controlled substances instead of a medical injury.

    Place’s opinions do not discuss the exercise of pharmacological judgment

    The Court found that Place’s testimony discussed the steps a distributor or government agency might take when investigating possible diversion. Place’s opinions did not question the drugs Manes’ pharmacists dispensed; his opinions questioned the steps the pharmacists took to investigate questionable prescriptions based on red flags (such as commonly diverted substances) before filling the prescriptions. This opinion fell within his decades of experience with investigations and compliance in the public and private sectors.

    Moreover, Manes argued the following opinion is impermissible: “AmerisourceBergen was justified in questioning Plaintiff’s ability to satisfy its corresponding responsibility for the proper dispensing of controlled substances.” The Court held that Place’s opinion is made from the perspective of an outside investigator, not that of a pharmacist challenging Manes’ pharmacist’s pharmacological judgment.

    Some of Manes’ objections are simply disputes over the factual basis for Place’s opinions

    Manes took issue with paragraph 39 of Place’s report. That paragraph read, in part, “[p]roper controls can be accomplished by following common sense, sound professional practice, and proper dispensing procedures.”

    This paragraph is a direct quote from the DEA’s Pharmacist’s Manual. Manes argued that this is an example of where Place “opines as to what pharmacies and pharmacists should or should not do.” The Court held that the paragraph is an example of what the DEA says what a pharmacist should or should not do. In other words, Manes’ argument missed the mark because it challenged the factual basis for Place’s opinions.

    Deborah Komoroski

    Manes next asked the Court to exclude Deborah Komorski because she is testifying on matters outside of her experience. Manes made the same argument as above about Arkansas’s standard of care for pharmacists, which the Court rejected for the same reasons stated above: the statute did not apply to this case.

    Plaintiff objected to Komoroski’s opinions which discussed AmerisourceBergen’s processes when investigating whether a pharmacist carries out their corresponding responsibility. The Court held that these opinions all fall within her decades-long experience as both a pharmacist and diversion control agent.

    Manes argued that not only did Komorski fail to consider all the facts but Komoroski cannot testify as to the applicable standard of care because she never practiced pharmacy in Arkansas. The Court did not find any of these arguments convincing because Komoroski’s opinions did not discuss the standard of care.

    Jack Teitelman

    AmerisourceBergen argued that because Teitelman failed to review a multitude of key sources of information, his testimony should be excluded because it is “so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury.” The Court held that while Teitelman’s report may have more thoroughly listed the documents he relied on, that he might base his opinion on different facts than Place does not render his opinion inadmissible.

    AmerisourceBergen argued Teitelman is unaware of the steps in its investigation. However, the Court found that reviewing Teitelman’s report in its entirety reveals that he is aware of various steps AmerisourceBergen took as part of its investigation.

    Teitelman’s report attempts to explain how Ruan V. United Statess, 497 U.S. 450 (2022) applies to the way that AmerisourceBergen and the DEA should evaluate a pharmacist’s corresponding responsibility. The Court held that Teitelman’s testimony about Ruan impermissibly ventured into testimony about legal matters because he applied the Ruan case out of its criminal context.

    The Court did not agree with AmerisourceBergen that Teitelman’s opinions about AmerisourceBergen’s policies were unreliable because they were purely speculative. AmerisourceBergen primarily argued that because Mr. Teitelman did not have personal knowledge of how AmerisourceBergen’s policies had changed over time, his opinions on the topic should be excluded. However, Teitelman based his opinion in part on his previous work with pharmacies that had a relationship with AmerisourceBergen.

    Held

    The Court denied Manes’ motion to exclude the testimony of James Place and Deborah Komoroski but granted in part and denied in part AmerisourceBergen ‘s motion to exclude the testimony of Jack Teitelman.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Place’s opinions all fall within his area of expertise and Arkansas’s statute about the standard of care does not apply in this case. Manes is free to challenge the factual basis of Place’s opinions on cross-examination, but Manes has not identified any reason Place’s testimony is inadmissible.
    • As per Rule 703, Teitelman can base his opinion on facts or data he has been made aware of or personally observed.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Manes’ Pharmacy, Inc. V. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation
    Docket Number: 2:22cv2186
    Court: United States District Court, Arkansas Western
    Order Date: July 23, 2024
  • Psychiatry Expert Witness’ Testimony Regarding Plaintiff’s Pain and Suffering Related to his Defamation Claims Rejected

    Psychiatry Expert Witness’ Testimony Regarding Plaintiff’s Pain and Suffering Related to his Defamation Claims Rejected

    In this pending lawsuit, which was the product of consolidated cases: Case No. 20-1074, the Lead Case, and Case No. 22-1186, the Member Case, Fazio filed a second amended complaint in the Lead Case against Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company (“Metropolitan Casualty”), Naihomi Figueroa Fontánez (“Ms. Figueroa”), and Isaías Soto Reyes (“Mr. Soto”) on September 29, 2020. In the complaint, Fazio alleged that while being transported in an Uber ride, his vehicle was struck from behind while stopped at a traffic light, resulting in damages. Fazio contended that all Defendants were jointly and severally liable, entitling him to compensation in excess of one million dollars ($1,000,000). Fazio further alleged that James River breached the provisions of the uninsured motorist coverage as part of a policy issued to Uber “for the benefit of Uber drivers and passengers” by denying coverage and by failing to compensate him for his injuries. Additionally, in the Lead Case, Fazio brought five additional causes of action against James River alone: breach of contract, contractual breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith, and unfair claim adjustment practices. In the Member Case, on June 22, 2022, Fazio filed an amended complaint against James River alone, alleging violations of Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; violations of the Puerto Rico Libel and Slander Act of 1902, 32 L.P.R.A. §§ 3141-3149; and violations of the general tort provisions of Puerto Rico Civil Code Articles 1536 and 1538, 31 L.P.R.A. §§ 10801 and 10803. In this 2022 lawsuit, Fazio alleged that James River defamed him during the pendency of the Lead Case. On October 6, 2022, James River filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the Member Case, resulting in the Court dismissing with prejudice one of the three causes of action: Fazio’s claim that James River defamed him with its use of the word “extort” during an email exchange between the parties. On September 30, 2022, the Court consolidated both cases. On February 23, 2024, the Court granted James River’s motion for summary judgment as to the remaining two causes of action in the Member Case.

    Fazio requested that Fernando Cabrera Jr.’s testimony, whom Defendant James River Insurance Company (“James River”) had declared as an expert witness, be excluded from trial on Daubert grounds and because it violated the Court’s orders.

    Psychiatry Expert Witness

    Fernando Cabrera is a distinguished and proven expert psychiatrist who has various decades of experience testifying in the Puerto Rico State and Federal Courts. He has over 42 years of experience in the medical field. He graduated from Universidad Central Del Caribe School of Medicine in 1981.

    Discussion by the Court

    Fazio argued that Cabrera’s report should be excluded on Daubert grounds. Fazio first contended that Cabrera’s opinions in his expert report were not reliable because his methodology and analysis were flawed. The Court found that Fazio did not provide any specificity in his argument that cast a shadow on the methodology used in Cabrera’s report. The methodology behind Cabrera’s report was composed of Fazio’s biodata, description of present illnesses, family history, mental status, and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“D.S.M.-5”) information, and Cabrera’s observations from a one-and-a-half-hour interview with Fazio and conclusions. Fazio cited various jurisprudence examples of when an expert’s methodology was erroneous but did not apply the principles outlined in the jurisprudence that he cited to Cabrera’s report. For example, Fazio did not explain what facts Cabrera failed to consider, why his conclusions could not have been reached from conducting a one-and-a-half-hour interview, how his methodology was erroneous, or how he conducted a faulty investigation.

    Fazio also asserted that Cabrera’s testimony should be excluded because it related almost entirely to the Lead Case, in violation of the Court’s orders. At the time Cabrera was retained, his interview with Fazio was conducted, and his report was produced, discovery in the Lead Case had concluded and the parties were ordered to continue discovery for only the Member Case. However, contrary to what Fazio was suggesting, the facts and damages relating to the Member Case, that is Fazio’s defamation claims, could not be considered in isolation apart from the Lead Case. To accurately determine Fazio’s pain and suffering relating to his defamation claims, a jury would have to be made aware of any pain and suffering Fazio had before the alleged defamation happened, so it could discount said pain and suffering and ensure that Fazio was only being awarded damages relating to the defamation claims. Therefore, it was not improper that Cabrera’s report discussed predefamation pain and suffering. Moreover, it was Fazio who brought the Lead Case and moved to consolidate. Thus, the Court held that Fazio cannot complain that information relating to the Lead Case was being discussed to provide a clear and complete picture of the Member Case.

    However, there were two other concerns that needed further discussion warranting Cabrera’s testimony to be excluded at trial. First, Fazio’s motion asserted that Cabrera’s expert report failed to comply with the expert disclosures required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). The Court observed that James River did not address this failure to provide expert disclosures in its opposition. Nor could Cabrera’s report, on its face, satisfy all of the requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). For example, the report did not refer to compensation paid for Cabrera’s testimony, any publications in the last decade, and previous testimony during the last four years.

    Second, even if James River had provided the expert disclosures, the Court declared it was apparent that Cabrera was retained solely for the Member Case. The discovery phase of the Lead Case had closed on August 31, 2021. On November 8, 2022, the Court reiterated that the discovery phase in the Lead Case had closed and set deadlines for further discovery relating solely to the Member Case. Thereafter, on December 30, 2022, James River informed the Court that it had retained Cabrera, among others. Therefore, because discovery of the Lead Case was already closed, James River retained Cabrera solely for the Member Case. Moreover, the only medical opinion that Cabrera gave was regarding the Member Case: “My medical opinion is that Fazio has no emotional conditions that are secondary [to], or related to, the supposed defamation h[e] is alleging in his Complaint against [James River] and its lawyers.” Cabrera’s report, although it made references to circumstances surrounding the Lead Case, was prepared solely for the Member Case, not the Lead Case. In light of the Opinion and Orders dismissing Fazio’s defamation claims entirely, the need to have Cabrera testify about the damages suffered as a result of said claims is moot. Accordingly, Cabrera was not allowed to testify at trial, and Fazio’s motion in limine was granted.

    Held

    The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Fernando Cabrera Jr.’s testimony.

    The Court has not arrived on an outcome for this case since the remaining issues involved in this case still await resolution.

    Key Takeaways:

    When challenging expert testimony on Daubert grounds, specific arguments regarding methodology’s reliability are crucial, as generalized criticisms may not suffice to exclude the testimony. Additionally, expert testimony should be directly relevant to the case at hand, and even if certain aspects relate to other cases, they may be admissible if they contribute to a clear understanding of the current case. It’s imperative for expert reports to comply with legal requirements outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as failure to meet these requirements can be grounds for exclusion. Moreover, experts should be retained within the appropriate scope of the case, and their involvement should align with the specific aspects they are retained for. If expert opinions are not directly relevant to the issues in the case, they may be deemed inadmissible. Lastly, if certain aspects of the case become moot or irrelevant due to court rulings or other developments, expert testimony related to those aspects may be excluded. Overall, careful consideration of the reliability, relevance, compliance with legal requirements, and scope of retention of expert testimony is essential to ensure its meaningful contribution to the case resolution.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Fazio V. James River Insurance Company Et Al
    Docket Number: 3:20cv1074
    Court: United States District Court, Puerto Rico
    Citation: 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34462
    Order Date: February 23, 2024