Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Incident

  • Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline 

    Neuropsychology Expert Not Allowed to Opine on Cognitive Decline 

    Plaintiff January Villareal claimed that during her December 16, 2021 arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence, former San Jose Police Officer Matthew Dominguez inappropriately touched her as she sat handcuffed in the back of his patrol vehicle.

    Dominguez filed a motion to exclude one of the opinions offered by Villareal’s retained expert, Dr. Randall C. Epperson, a clinical neuropsychologist, regarding the cognitive decline Villareal claims she suffered as a result of the incident at issue while Villareal filed a motion to preclude all testimony and opinions of Defendants’ retained expert and forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Marc A. Cohen.

    Neuropsychology Expert Witness

    Randall C. Epperson, Ph.D. has received training in post-traumatic stress disorder and cognitive decline diagnosis and emotional harm related to sexual assault victims as a clinical and forensic neuropsychologist over the last 40 years.

    Epperson has testified as a neuropsychology expert in over a hundred state and federal cases regarding emotional harm, including post traumatic stress disorder and cognitive decline.

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

    Psychiatry Expert Witness

    Marc Alan Cohen obtained a Master’s of Science degree in Physiological Science from the University of California, Los Angeles. He received an M.D. degree from the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California in 2003. Cohen then completed a psychiatric residency training program at the University of California, Los Angeles-San Fernando Valley Psychiatry Residency Training Program, and thereafter completed a fellowship in forensic psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles. Cohen is board certified in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Randall Epperson

    Dominguez argued that Epperson did not have sufficient data to reliably opine that Villareal has “Neurocognitive Disorder, unspecified (reduction in cognitive efficiency due to emotional stress and depression)” and that she experienced cognitive decline as a result of the alleged incident with Dominguez.

    In his report, Epperson stated that Villareal’s “intellectual level has dropped from 112 (high average) to 90 (bottom of average range, 25%).” It appeared to be undisputed that Epperson did not have data regarding Villareal’s intellectual level prior the incident at issue.

    Villareal did not dispute that Epperson had no data or other information about Villareal’s intellectual level or her cognitive functioning before the incident. She argued, however, that Epperson’s opinion is admissible because he relied on the Wechsler Test of Premorbid Functioning and the Wonderlic Test in his analysis.

    Villareal acknowledged that Epperson’s assessments relied on indicators consisting of “the mean IQ of individuals with her education level (120) and work experience (113, 113, and 114)” as well as two assessment indicators—non-phonetically spelled English words (108) and English vocabulary (104)—that are “relatively resistant to deterioration.”

    From these indicators, Epperson concluded that Villareal’s pre-incident IQ was 112 and had dropped to 90 as a result of the incident.

    Epperson’s report disclosed the assessments he conducted and their results, but it included no explanation demonstrating that these one-time assessments of intellectual level may be used reliably to measure cognitive decline or to attribute the cause of any such decline to the incident in question. However, the Court will not preclude Epperson from testifying about his assessment that Villareal has “Neurocognitive Disorder, unspecified,” to the extent that testimony reflects his assessment of Villareal’s current cognitive functioning.

    Marc Cohen

    Villareal did not challenge Cohen’s qualifications. However, she argued that Cohen’s proposed testimony is unreliable because he did not personally examine her or conduct any formal testing. Additionally, Villareal argued that Cohen’s proposed testimony is unhelpful and improperly invaded the fact-finding province of the jury.

    Under the circumstances presented, the lack of a psychiatric examination of Villareal diminished the utility of Cohen’s testimony in helping the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue regarding, for example, the existence, causes, or sources of Villareal’s claimed emotional distress; the more “plausible” bases for Villareal’s PTSD diagnosis; the validity of her attribution of her symptoms to Dominguez’s alleged conduct; and the reliability of her memories of the events in question.

    Cohen’s report included commentary, opinions, and conclusions purporting to tell the jury the import and interpretation of, as well as inferences and conclusions to be drawn from, a timeline of events, Villareal’s medical records, other events or issues in Villareal’s life, Villareal’s statements and conduct, and other evidence of events as they unfolded. Such opinions intrude on the jury’s role in making credibility and other determinations of facts at issue. 

    While Cohen is permitted to opine that the events as alleged by Villareal, if true, could not result in PTSD, the Court held that Cohen will not be permitted to testify or offer opinions regarding the existence, causes, or sources of Villareal’s claimed emotional distress.

    Held

    • The Court granted in part and denied in part Dominguez’s motion to exclude a portion of Dr. Randall Epperson’s testimony.
    • The Court granted in part and denied in part Villareal’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Marc Cohen.

    Key Takeaway

    Cohen offered opinions and conclusions regarding evidence that jurors are capable of reviewing for themselves based on their own experience, without the aid of scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. 

    There was no abuse of discretion in the determination that expert testimony would not aid the jury in evaluating evidence that was fully presented and within the understanding of the average juror.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Villareal V. City Of San Jose
    Docket Number: 5:22cv9152
    Court Name: United States District Court, California Northern
    Order Date: April 10, 2026
  • Retail Safety Expert’s Testimony Regarding the Duty of Care and Breach Excluded

    Retail Safety Expert’s Testimony Regarding the Duty of Care and Breach Excluded

    Plaintiff William Ramsey was allegedly injured while visiting the Defendant’s store in Somerset. As a result, the Plaintiff filed a premises liability cause of action against Defendant, Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC.

    Plaintiff relied on the testimony and opinions of Keven Moore. According to Moore, “Defendant did not fulfill the requisite duty of care to safeguard Plaintiff on December 7th, 2022,” and such failure “to adhere to the standard professional care and practices mandated in the retail building materials and home improvement industry, which are critical for the safe operation of such establishments, . . . significantly contributed to the injury sustained by Plaintiff.” Defendant, however, sought to exclude all testimony and opinions by Moore.

    Retail Safety Expert Witness

    Keven G. Moore is a senior risk control consultant/manager/HSE safety manager/independent consultant of demonstrated experience in leading organizations to integrate progressive safety, health, environmental, risk management and claims initiatives within public and private sectors.” He has over 35 years of risk management & safety professional work experience.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendant articulated eight reasons why, it argued, Moore’s report and related testimony would fail to satisfy Daubert and Rule 702, namely that Moore:

    (1) Lacked experience in the field of retail lumber or home improvement

    (2) Did not document or describe any methodology

    (3) Attempted to usurp the function of the Court by opining on the duty allegedly owed by [Defendant] to its customers

    (4) Is not qualified to give causation opinions because he is not a medical doctor

    (5) Contradicted the burden of proof imposed upon Plaintiff and attempted to redirect it to Defendant

    (6) Engaged in flat-out speculation

    (7) Opined that Defendant should have had signage in the lumber aisle which is moot based on Plaintiff’s own testimony

    (8) Relied on questionable online sources for information which are not sources of scientific, technical, professional, or other specialized knowledge. From this, the Court understood that Defendant primarily challenged Moore’s qualifications and the reliability of his testimony, and it also raised concerns about Moore’s ability to make legal determinations, among other things.

    Analysis

    The Moore report opined that Defendant “did not uphold a reasonable standard of duty of care to safeguard Plaintiff”; “failed to adhere to the professional care and practices that are customary in the retail building materials and home improvement industry, which are essential for operating such an establishment safely”; “failed to exercise their duty of care in safely retrieving awkward, heavy, and oversized stock”; and, along with its employees, engaged in “several reckless and actions and inactions that helped create a very dangerous environment.”

    However, Moore failed to identify the alleged industry standard or professional care and practices that are “customary,” and fails to describe how Lowe’s allegedly breached them. Moreover, the Court held that many of these broad-brush statements are legal conclusions or generic recitations of the legal standard to which Moore cannot properly testify.

    Plaintiff has utterly failed to provide the Court with any basis to find that Moore’s method—which remains a mystery to the Court other than his listing of “evidence reviewed” and ostensibly his experience—has been “‘tested, accepted, or used by other experts in the field of retail safety.’” In this case, Moore did not even indicate that he read “publications” relevant to retail home improvement standards. Other than his own experience, Moore identified only litigation documents and websites as the basis for his opinions. Websites such as Wikipedia, Zippia, and Yelp are clearly insufficient to meet Plaintiff’s burden under Rule 702. 

    Moreover, Moore himself admitted that, because he “was retained as an expert witness nearly two years after the incident had occurred, he “determined that there would be no value in . . . visiting the site of the accident.”

    Held

    The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness, Keven Moore.

    Key Takeaway:

    Moore failed to rely on anything other than the record in this matter, coupled with his extensive experience. This is insufficient on this record to demonstrate reliability. At no point did Moore, who “relied ‘solely or primarily on experience, . . . explain how that experience leads to the conclusions he reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.’” The Court simply cannot find that any of Moore’s proffered opinions are sufficiently reliable under Rule 702.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Ramsey V. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC
    Docket Number: 6:24cv1
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Southern Division
    Order Date: September 04, 2025