Tag: Knowledge

  • Human Factors Expert’s Testimony on Shopping Cart Maintenance Admitted

    Human Factors Expert’s Testimony on Shopping Cart Maintenance Admitted

    This case arises from the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, Jessica Loseke, and her husband while they were shopping at Menards in Omaha, Nebraska. They were loading a “refurbished cart” with bags of water softener when the cart broke and injured Loseke’s knee.

    Loseke filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert witness, Alex J. Balian, from being admitted at trial. Defendant, Menard, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation (“Menards”), filed a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert William N. Nelson, BSME, MS, MBA, and any other evidence of and/or reference to Nelson’s opinions.

    Retail Store Expert Witness

    Alex J. Balian has been in the retail industry as an owner, operator, and consultant for more than 65 years.

    He has testified as a safety and operations expert in all areas of retail
    store operations and public facilities involving supermarkets, commercial buildings, restaurants, warehouse facilities, home improvement stores and specialty stores for more than thirty years.

    He has qualified as a retail safety expert and given expert testimony in state and federal courts in matters pertaining to retail operations throughout the United States.

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

    Human Factors Expert Witness

    William N. Nelson has over 20 years of experience in the application of Biomechanics, Ergonomics, Human Factors and Product Development. His consulting experience is very broad: from industrial to sports; from federal government to private enterprise; from medical institutions to aerospace.

    Nelson’s past work has involved customized training for injury prevention; ergonomic job analysis resulting in a rotation schedule which utilized biomechanical, physiological and skill level data; human factors analysis of Cumulative Trauma Disorder in production processes; development of workstation set up and design.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Opinions of Alex Balian

    Plaintiff argued that Balian’s proffered testimony is not reliable. Plaintiff stated that “Balian’s opinions are primarily based on his personal experience in the retail industry, rather than on any scientific or technical methodology. His report lacks any empirical data or testing to support his conclusions regarding the safety of Menards’ shopping cart inspection procedures.”

    Opinions of William Nelson

    Defendant argued that “Nelson’s opinions are unreliable. He believed that Menards should have some sort of “preventative maintenance” program, and that Menards should hire employees who are trained in welding to inspect carts. These opinions are not based on any retail-industry specific standards but rather drawn based on his own belief.”

    Analysis

    The Court has carefully reviewed the argument of the parties as well as the briefs, the evidence presented, and in particular, the opinions of both Nelson and Balian.

    Nelson is an engineer who has a working knowledge of welding requirements, and Nelson applied engineering principles from his educational background, studies, and work experience. With regard to Balian, the Court likewise found his testimony relevant and of assistance to the trier of fact in this case. Balian has served as a consultant for retail store operations, where he has advised, trained, and executed policies and procedures in supermarkets and other public facilities.

    Held

    • The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Alex Balian.
    • The Court denied Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the testimony of William Nelson.

    Key Takeaway:

    Both experts appeared to have the educational knowledge, training and experience to testify in this case. Their testimony appeared to be such as would assist the trier of fact without invading the province of the jury.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Loseke V. Menard, Inc.
    Docket Number: 8:23cv537
    Court Name: United States District Court, Nebraska
    Order Date: November 19, 2025
  • Neurology Expert Witness’ Opinions About the Potential Presence of a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Admitted

    Neurology Expert Witness’ Opinions About the Potential Presence of a Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Admitted

    Plaintiff Rickie Russell, Jr. (“Russell) alleged that, on August 13, 2021, Terry Delmer Prater (“Prater”) crashed an 18-wheeler truck into Russell’s roadside work crew Russell claimed he was pinned between two vehicles and suffered serious injuries as a result of that motor vehicle collision. Russell brought suit against Defendants Prater and Big V Feeds, Inc. for the injuries he sustained.

    As part of their defense, Defendants retained Randolph Evans, M.D. (“Dr. Evans”) to offer expert testimony. On July 15, 2024, Russell filed his motion to exclude Randolph Evans.

    Neurology Expert Witness

    Randolph W. Evans, MD received his B.A. from Rice University in 1974 and M.D. from Baylor College of Medicine in 1978. Evans completed his internship and residency in Neurology at Baylor College of Medicine in 1982. He is board certified in Neurology and subspecialty certified in Headache Medicine and a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, the American Headache Society, and the Texas Neurological Society.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Evans has sufficient qualifications to serve as an expert

    First, Russell argued that Evans lacked the requisite qualifications to serve as an expert in the present case because he “has never physically examined Russell, listened to his complaints, and would not even recognize Russell if he was standing across the hall from him.” Further, Russell argued that the medical records Russell produced are “the best evidence of [his] condition after the crash.”

    After reviewing Evans’ curriculum vitae, the Court was satisfied with Evans’s education, training and experience to qualify him to offer his opinion on Russell’s alleged traumatic brain injury and the reasonableness and necessity of Russell’s medical treatment.

    Evans’ methodology is reliable

    Russell next argued that Evans “has provided zero methodology to support how he came to his conclusion” and that there is a “significant analytical gap in Evans’ approach.”

    Evans identified the medical records for Russell that he reviewed and then summarized those records in detail in his report. Thereafter, he applied his education, training, experience, and knowledge of the medical facts within the medical records to reach his opinions regarding the potential presence of a mild traumatic brain injury in reasonable medical probability. He cited the Glasgow Coma Scale and various other medical publications in support of his opinions. 

    Held

    The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Randolph Evans.

    Key Takeaway:

    The role of district courts at this juncture is to ensure relevance and reliability, not accuracy. Evans applied his education, training, experience, and knowledge of the medical facts within the medical records to reach his opinions regarding the potential presence of a mild traumatic brain injury in reasonable medical probability.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Russell, Jr. V. Big V Feeds, Inc. Et Al
    Docket Number: 4:23cv622
    Court: United States District Court, Texas Eastern
    Order Date: August 16, 2024