Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Reliable

  • Fire Investigation Expert’s Analysis of Burn Patterns Admitted

    Fire Investigation Expert’s Analysis of Burn Patterns Admitted

    Defendants owned and managed an apartment complex called The Trails at Flat Rock in Columbus, Georgia. In October of 2022, a fire occurred in Building A of the apartment complex. Kevin Ford, who was staying in unit A-24 with tenant Anthony Thorpe, died in the fire. Plaintiff, the administrator of Ford’s estate, asserted negligence claims against Defendants based on Ford’s death, alleging that Defendants’ negligence caused Ford’s death and pre-death pain and suffering. Plaintiff intended to support these claims by proffering evidence of negligent inspection, testing, repair, and maintenance of the apartment’s sprinkler system—including expert testimony of Robert Bell, Frank Hagan, and Gregory Gorbett. Defendants argued that the testimony of these three experts should be excluded.

    Fire Investigation Expert Witnesses

    Robert Keith Bell is a certified fire investigator with more than thirty years of experience performing private fire investigations and working for the Georgia State Fire Marshal’s Office.

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

    Frank E. Hagan is a mechanical engineer with more than thirty years of experience who specializes in fire and explosion consulting. 

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

    Gregory E. Gorbett holds a PhD in fire protection engineering and works as a professor in the Fire Protection and Safety Engineering Technology Program at Eastern Kentucky University.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Robert Bell

    Bell opined that the fire originated in the kitchen of apartment A-23. Defendants contended that Bell’s testimony did not apply the scientific method outlined in NFPA 921. Those steps are: (1) recognizing the need; (2) defining the problem; (3) collecting the data; (4) analyzing the data; (5) developing hypotheses; (6) testing the hypotheses; and (7) selecting the hypotheses. The Court found Defendants’ arguments unpersuasive.

    First, Defendants contended that Bell’s investigation was insufficient because he ruled out the living room and balcony of A-23 as the fire’s origin without collecting evidence and data from those areas. Defendants acknowledged that it was impossible for Bell to collect such evidence and data because there was nothing left of A-23’s living room and balcony due to the fire damage. Bell examined burn patterns, Matterport scans, and photographs of the fire to rule out the living room and balcony as possible areas of origin.

    Next, Defendants argued that Bell’s investigation was incomplete because he did not interview A-23’s resident. During his investigation, Bell reviewed investigation reports that included statements A-23’s resident made to investigators. The Court is not persuaded that Bell’s failure to follow up with A-23’s resident under these circumstances renders his opinions unreliable.

    Finally, Defendants asserted that Bell’s investigation was incomplete because he did not conduct testing on the contents of a visibly burned pot even though he concluded that the fire started on the range top of A-23 due to careless use of cooking materials. Bell testified that based on the burn damage and burn patterns on the pot, he knew something in the pot itself must have burned. Bell further explained that in reaching his opinion, he considered evidence from the range top and examined burn patterns in the kitchen.

    Frank Hagan and Gregory Gorbett

    Hagan and Gorbett concluded that a sprinkler in the kitchen of A-23 failed to extinguish the fire on the stove top in the kitchen, which allowed the fire to spread to the rest of the building. Defendants argued that the opinion testimony of Hagan and Gorbett should be excluded because they relied on some of Bell’s opinions in reaching their own. Defendants contended that if Bell’s testimony is excluded, then the testimony of Hagan and Gorbett must be excluded too.

    As discussed above, the Court declined to exclude Bell’s testimony.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motions to exclude the testimony of Robert Bell, Frank Hagan, and Gregory Gorbett.

    Key Takeaway:

    Federal Rule of Evidence 702 states that an expert’s testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data. Under Rule 702, an expert may rely on the reliable opinions of other experts. Therefore, Hagan and Gorbett may rely on Bell’s opinions in forming their own conclusions. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Kimora Washington V. GWR Management LLC Et Al
    Docket Number: 4:24cv81
    Court Name: United States District Court, Georgia Middle
    Order Date: October 07, 2025
  • Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Stock Inflation

    Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Stock Inflation

    Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud and made numerous materially false and misleading statements and omissions to investors regarding Acadia’s business and operations.

    Defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony and opinions of Plaintiff’s expert witness W. Scott Dalrymple. Specifically, Dalrymple was retained to analyze share price inflation and damages associated with Plaintiffs’ allegations.

    Dalrymple purports to calculate the inflation in the stock price caused by these alleged misrepresentations by measuring the abnormal stock price decline following “curative events” that allegedly disclosed the truth behind the misrepresentations.

    Economics Expert Witness

    W. Scott Dalrymple is a Partner at BVA Group LLC (“BVA Group”). He is an economist and a CFA charter holder with extensive experience in economic, financial, and statistical analyses. During his career, he has worked on issues relating to the analysis of economic damages involving securities litigation, business valuation, structured finance, financial derivatives, antitrust, intellectual property, and breach of contract.

    Dalrymple holds a Master of Science in Economics from the London School of Economics and Political Science and a Bachelor of Business Administration in Finance and Business Honors from the University of Texas at Austin. 

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

    Discussion by the Court

    To begin with, Defendants challenged the admissibility of Dalrymple’s opinions under Rule 702. As grounds, Defendants contended that Dalrymple did not offer opinions of loss causation which rendered his opinions on damages irrelevant and unhelpful; that his opinions are unreliable because he failed to disaggregate the impact of the corrective disclosure from any other non-fraudulent information; and that his opinions are results oriented (i.e., not reliable) because he measured inflation using a four-day window for one of the alleged corrective disclosures.

    Plaintiffs, however, noted that Dalrymple conducted multiple event studies in which he considered and disaggregated confounding information and that the only assumption in Dalrymple’s analysis is that the jury will find the alleged misstatements were, in fact, actionably false and misleading.

    For the most part, Defendants’ arguments challenged the factual bases for Dalrymple’s opinions, they go to the weight, rather than the admissibility, of his testimony.

    The Court found that Plaintiffs have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dalrymple is qualified, his opinions have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline, and that he will testify to knowledge that will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence and deciding why Acadia’s stock price fell when it did and the issue of damages.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witness W. Scott Dalrymple. 

    Key Takeaway:

    To determine reliability under Rule 702, the Court must determine not whether the expert’s opinion is correct, but rather whether it rests upon a reliable foundation, as opposed to, say, unsupported speculation.

    The facts of this case do not show that Dalrymple’s opinions are “so fundamentally unsupported that they can offer no assistance to the trier of fact.”

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: St. Clair County Employees’ Retirement System V. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. Et Al
    Docket Number: 3:18cv988
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division
    Order Date: October 01, 2025
  • Accounting Expert’s Testimony on Overhead Costs Excluded

    Accounting Expert’s Testimony on Overhead Costs Excluded

    This case arises from a contract between The Bama Companies, Inc., a manufacturer of baked goods, and Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc., a farmer and food processor, for the purchase of approximately 130,710 pounds of berries for a mixed berry and lemon cream pie Bama would supply for McDonald’s restaurants.

    Bama claimed that it was forced to cancel the McDonald’s promotion because Bama identified a handful of physical contaminants in some finished pies.

    Plaintiff’s expert, Steve Rutherford, a licensed CPA was retained to “review and verify as to the consistency and comprehensiveness of how the staff (for the Plaintiff) accounted for the standard costing and pricing comparison,” and to state whether overhead costs should be included in damages.

    Rutherford opined that Bama incurred damages of Nine Hundred Eighty-Nine Thousand and Nine Hundred and Seventy-Seven Dollars ($989,977.00) due to actions of Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc.

    Defendant filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Rutherford. Specifically, Defendant argued that Rutherford’s testimony should be excluded because (1) Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that Rutherford is qualified to opine regarding the valuation of damages in a civil case, and (2) Rutherford’s opinions “consisted largely of bare conclusions that vouch for Plaintiff’s expertise as a supplier.” 

    Accounting Expert Witness

    Steve M. Rutherford is a Certified Public Accountant and has served as the sole shareholder and president of his own accounting firm for nearly thirty-three (33) years.

     Additionally, he has provided expert advice and testimony in multiple and a wide range of personal and business legal matters for approximately thirty-six (36) years and has been appointed as a bankruptcy trustee on eight (8) occasions.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    In Rutherford’s report, he initially concluded that the damages set forth by Plaintiff are “a reasonable estimate of the damages” and further noted that he has “no reasons to doubt the accuracy nor the comprehensiveness of methods and calculations” set forth by Plaintiff. Moreover, he observed that Plaintiff “has been doing business with McDonald’s for approximately three decades” and that “it seems to reason that from a discerning eye, someone in the business profession would have to think [they] know what they are doing (much experience) when it comes to pricing out the costs associated with making pies for McDonald’s.”

    Building on this reasoning, Rutherford further asserted that “such a long-term mutually beneficial relationship would have been terminated, had [Plaintiff] been devoid in their costing amounts.” However, according to the Court, rather than applying methodologies and performing calculations himself, Rutherford simply assumed that the methodologies applied and calculations performed by Plaintiff must be right due to Plaintiff’s previous experience and existing business relationship with McDonald’s.

    Consequently, for similar reasons, the Court found that Rutherford’s opinions regarding overhead costs are also not reliable or relevant. Once again, rather than applying methodologies and performing calculations, Rutherford opined that calculations prepared by Plaintiff are “very detailed, concise and organized” and further emphasized that due to Plaintiff’s previous experience and existing business relationship with McDonald’s, “any deficiencies or irregularities would have been exposed and corrected at the time the job in question had come to fruition.” Ultimately, while he seemed to offer general principles regarding overhead costs, such as rent, Rutherford’s opinions did not apply the specific facts of the case to a particular methodology and, therefore, did not provide sufficient support for the opinions he offered.

    Held

    The Court granted the Defendant’s Daubert motion to exclude the opinions of Bama Damages expert Steve Rutherford.

    Key Takeaway:

    Rutherford’s opinions are plainly not based in sound methodology, nor do his opinions demonstrate a connection of the opinions to the facts of the case. Rutherford’s opinions consisted mainly of assumptions with no evidentiary support. While an expert may apply assumptions, assumptions must have some reasonable evidentiary foundation.

    Further, although Rutherford is entitled to some element of professional judgment in forming his opinion, he must still explain how he reached his opinion based in recognized methodology and by application of the facts. Because Rutherford’s opinions failed to do so, the Court agreed with Defendant and found that Rutherford’s opinions are not reliable and relevant.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Bama Companies, Inc., The V. Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc.
    Docket Number: 4:18cv45
    Court Name: United States District Court, Oklahoma Northern
    Order Date: October 03, 2025
  • Wage and Hour Expert’s Testimony on Rounded Minutes Admitted

    Wage and Hour Expert’s Testimony on Rounded Minutes Admitted

    Jennmar manufactures and assembles products for use in agricultural, construction, energy, and mining industries, with locations across the United States. The Plaintiffs are current and former hourly employees of Jennmar. The Plaintiffs alleged that Jennmar failed to pay employees wages and overtime in violation of federal and state law. Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that Jennmar’s fifteen-minute time rounding policy, combined with mandatory safety and housekeeping pre-shift work, resulted in hourly employees performing approximately twenty minutes of unpaid compensable work per shift. 

    The Plaintiffs sought to exclude the testimony of Richard A. Goldberg, an expert witness for Jennmar.

    Wage and Hour Expert Witness

    Richard A. Goldberg is a partner at Resolution Economics LLC, a firm that conducts economic and statistical analyses related to litigation and consulting matters. He has nearly 19 years of experience in labor and employment-related litigation support and consulting. His engagements involve state and federal wage-and-hour litigation, class action employment discrimination claims, and single-plaintiff matters. In addition, Goldberg partners with companies and their counsel to conduct proactive evaluations of pay equity and compliance with wage-and-hour laws. 

    Goldberg holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a master’s degree in political science with an emphasis in quantitative research methodology from Columbia University.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    The Plaintiffs contended that the methodology employed by Goldberg was not reliable. Specifically, the Plaintiffs argued that Goldberg did not address (1) how unpaid hours worked should be calculated; (2) how unpaid wages should not be calculated; and (3) the effects of Jennmar’s rounding practices. Further, the Plaintiffs contended that Goldberg’s testimony would not assist the factfinder to understand the evidence, is irrelevant, and is not rooted in personal knowledge.

    However, Goldberg based his conclusions on timekeeping and payroll data provided by Jennmar. Goldberg relied on this data to calculate a series of summary statistics for each employee (including averages, medians, and the percentages of shifts with rounding above or below certain thresholds). Given that both sides have conceded to the accuracy of the timekeeping record, the Court found that Goldberg based his conclusions upon reliable data. 

    Goldberg also attested to using the same methodology as Jennmar’s expert to determine the number of allegedly rounded minutes for each shift. 

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude the testimony of Richard Goldberg.

    Key Takeaway:

    Goldberg’s work includes evaluating large data sets, such as timeclock entries and payroll information.

    The task for the district court in deciding whether an expert’s opinion is reliable is not to determine whether it is correct, but rather to determine whether it rests upon a reliable foundation, as opposed to, say, unsupported speculation.

    Given that both sides have conceded to the accuracy of the timekeeping record, the Court found that Goldberg based his conclusions upon reliable data. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Stacy Et Al V. Jennmar Corporation Of Virginia, Inc. Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:21cv15
    Court Name: United States District Court, Virginia Western
    Order Date: September 30, 2025
  • Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on the Causes and Effects of Sexual Harassment

    Psychology Expert Allowed to Opine on the Causes and Effects of Sexual Harassment

    Raeshon Strickland filed a lawsuit against Associated Foods Stores, Inc., alleging that she was subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile, intimidating, and offensive work environment. Strickland further contended that she experienced retaliation after opposing or reporting the misconduct.

    Defendant filed a motion to exclude part of the expert report prepared by Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Louise F. Fitzgerald, Ph.D. while Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude Defendant’s expert Dr. Nancy B. Cohn, Ph.D. under Rule 702. 

    Psychology Expert Witnesses

    Dr. Louise F. Fitzgerald, Ph.D., is a Professor Emerita at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a distinguished career dedicated to understanding and addressing gender-based violence, workplace sexual harassment, and women’s psychological well-being.

    Fitzgerald received her Ph.D. in Psychology from The Ohio State University in 1979, following her M.A. from the same institution and a B.A. in Psychology (magna cum laude) from the University of Maryland. Her academic journey has been marked by a steadfast commitment to investigating sexual harassment, particularly in institutional settings such as academia, the military, and the workplace.

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

    Dr. Nancy B. Cohn, Ph.D. is a fellowship-trained forensic psychologist. Her areas of expertise include evaluations for the criminal courts, family court and civil matters.

    She has a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Utah.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    a. Defendant’s Motion to Partially Exclude

    Fitzgerald’s testimony pertains to “the nature, extent and causation of the [alleged] injures, damages, losses, and harms sustained by [Plaintiff],” among other things.

    Defendant sought to exclude only Part II of her report, which contains “a review of the scientific literature on sexual harassment: its nature, organizational causes, and its psychological consequences to the individuals who experience it.” Defendant did not challenge Fitzgerald’s qualifications, but argues that Part II of the report is not reliable or relevant under Rule 702, and is unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.

    The Defendant first argued that Part II of Fritzgerald’s report is not relevant because it “provided academic theories of sexual harassment,” with no “analysis specific to [Plaintiff] or [Defendant]” regarding “the alleged emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff because of her employment at AFS,” and because it will not “advance a material aspect of the case.”

    Upon reviewing Part II, the Court concluded it is relevant. The studies found in Part II provide the scientific knowledge upon which Fitzgerald’s conclusions are based in part and are not themselves conclusions about the case. Rather, and in addition to the studies, Fitzgerald’s ultimate opinions rest on “the facts of the present case,” and “methods of clinical science.”

    Here, Part II discussed the causes of sexual harassment, emotional and psychological consequences of sexual harassment, and organizational climate for sexual harassment. Because the scientific studies cited to in Part II go beyond mere discussion of gender stereotypes, the Court found that Part II will help the trier of fact understand issues that are not “well within a layperson’s common knowledge.”

    b. Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude

    Plaintiff argued that Cohn’s report is unreliable because (1) she did not conduct a psychological evaluation of Plaintiff; (2) she did not ask to review the documentation from Plaintiff’s expert’s evaluation; (3) she did not understand the diagnostic importance of the specificity of certain trauma symptoms; and (4) her report contains certain factual errors and faulty assumptions.

    However, Cohn’s testimony does not seek to diagnose Plaintiff, but instead opines as to the purported flawed reasoning of Fitzgerald. The Court agreed with Defendant that it is reasonable for Cohn to rely on only the relevant documents available in the case, including Plaintiff’s therapy records, Fitzgerald’s report, pleadings, deposition transcripts, and other court filings.

    The Court further agreed with Defendant that the mere fact Cohn did not review the underlying data of Fitzgerald’s evaluation of Plaintiff, alone, does not cause Cohn’s expert report as a whole to be unreliable under Rule 702. 

    Held

    • The Court denied Defendant’s partial motion to exclude the testimony of Louise Fitzgerald.
    • The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Defendant’s expert witness, Nancy Cohn.

    Key Takeaway:

    Courts have excluded expert testimony involving gender stereotypes on the grounds that such testimony could be understood by a lay person. Fitzgerald’s report discusses causes and effects of sexual harassment in the workplace, as opposed to general stereotypes.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Strickland V. Associated Food Stores
    Docket Number: 1:23cv30
    Court Name: United States District Court, Utah
    Order Date: September 30, 2025
  • Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on Knee Injury Admitted

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert’s Testimony on Knee Injury Admitted

    Plaintiff Maria Marano slipped and fell while at a Sam’s Club store. She subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit against Defendant Sam’s East, Inc., alleging that she sustained a meniscal tear in her knee as a result of the fall.

    Defendant disputes whether there is a causal connection between the fall and injury.

    Marano offered Dr. Thomas Parent, who surgically repaired her knee, as an expert witness. He testified that the fall caused Marano’s injury. Defendant filed a motion to exclude Parent under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.

    Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness

    Dr. Thomas Parent, M.D., is a Board Certified Orthopedic Surgeon & Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons with expertise in hand, wrist, shoulder & knee surgery. With over 25 years of experience, he specializes in regenerative medicine using biologics and stem cell therapy for tissue repair. Parent has a strong academic background with training from University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and Loma Linda University Medical Center. He is committed to providing personalized care and has a history of community involvement and academic contributions in orthopedic surgery.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Parent came to his causation opinion after examining Marano, considering her medical history, reviewing MRIs, evaluating clinical symptoms, and ultimately performing surgery. This type of methodology is generally accepted for medical injuries.

    Although the Defendant criticized Parent for not performing a differential diagnosis to exclude alternative causes of the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, the Court was not persuaded. The Defendant failed to present evidence of any other incident that could have caused the injuries treated by Parent. Nor is there any reason to doubt Parent’s treatment was inadequate to rule out other causes.

    Defendant also claimed that Parent’s opinions are unreliable because (1) they are based solely on what Marano told him; (2) he did not review any medical records that predate the fall; and (3) he failed to rule out any alternative cause. These arguments likewise failed to persuade the Court.

    Parent’s opinions are not based solely on what Marano told him. He has a treatment history with Marano, performed the surgery, and reviewed the only prior medical records (an MRI from 2015) available when forming his opinions. He testified that he would have considered an alternative explanation for the injuries if such information had been presented, but it wasn’t.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Thomas Parent, M.D.

    Key Takeaways:

    • A physician’s causation opinions need only be “sufficiently related to the information disclosed during the course of Plaintiff’s treatment.”
    • A doctor usually may primarily base his opinion as to the cause of a Plaintiff’s injuries on his history where the Plaintiff has sustained a common injury in a way that it commonly occurs.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Marano V. Sam’s East, Inc. Et Al
    Docket Number: United States District Court, Florida Middle
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division
    Order Date: September 18, 2025
  • Financial Analysis Expert’s Testimony on Employee Compensation Admitted

    Financial Analysis Expert’s Testimony on Employee Compensation Admitted

    This case arises from a contract dispute between Plaintiff Alorica Inc. and Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. concerning customer service outsourcing for AT&T.

    Defendant asserted that Plaintiff’s conduct caused damages, including employee time lost to negotiating an amendment, addressing issues from the alleged breach, and repairing Defendant’s AT&T relationship.

    To quantify these damages, Defendant retained David N. Fuller, a Chartered Financial Analyst, Accredited Senior Appraiser, and Certified Fraud Examiner. Fuller relied on payroll records for three employees and a declaration from Defendant’s corporate representative identifying the number of workdays those employees devoted to the relevant tasks. Using this information, Fuller calculated daily salary rates and multiplied them by the days reported, resulting in a damages figure of $33,900.77.

    Plaintiff filed a motion to strike and exclude Fuller’s testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Plaintiff contended that Fuller merely performed basic arithmetic without applying specialized expertise, arguing that his testimony would improperly lend undue credibility to Defendant’s damages claim.

    Financial Analysis Expert Witness

    David Neil Fuller is a Chartered Financial Analyst, Accredited Senior Appraiser, and Certified Fraud Examiner. He is currently employed as the President of Value Incorporated (“VALUE”), a financial valuation consulting firm located in Irving, Texas.

    His educational background includes a Master of Business Administration degree from Southern Methodist University with a concentration in Finance, and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Austin College with a concentration in Economics.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    I. Admissibility Under Rule 702

    A. Fuller is qualified

    First, there is no dispute that Fuller is a Chartered Financial Analyst, Accredited Senior Appraiser, and Certified Fraud Examiner. Plaintiff did not challenge his credentials directly but argues that he failed to apply them in forming his opinions.

    Therefore, the Court held that Fuller’s background and certifications establish that he is qualified under Rule 702 to provide opinions on damages and financial analysis.

    B. Fuller’s specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact

    Plaintiff contended that his opinion is unhelpful because it is limited to “elementary-level arithmetic” requiring no expertise. Defendant responded that even simple calculations can be admissible when framed by specialized knowledge, and that Fuller’s testimony will aid the jury by organizing payroll data and time allocations into a coherent damages model. The Court agreed that Fuller’s testimony may assist the trier of fact by explaining how employee salaries and reported workdays translate into a damages figure. That the math is simple does not, by itself, render the opinion inadmissible.

    C. Fuller’s testimony is based on sufficient facts and data

    Fuller relied on payroll records and the Franklin Declaration to determine employee compensation and time spent on tasks. Alorica argued that Fuller failed to verify these sources and simply accepted the numbers provided.

    The Court found that Fuller’s reliance on payroll records and a sworn declaration provided a sufficient factual basis to satisfy Rule 702(b). The Court agreed that any challenge to those inputs’ reliability spoke to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility.

    D. Fuller’s testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods reliably applied to the facts of the case

    Fuller divided bi-weekly salaries by ten to calculate daily rates and multiplied those rates by the number of workdays listed in the Franklin Declaration, yielding a damages estimate of $33,900. Plaintiff characterized this as parroting numbers without methodology, while Tech Mahindra framed it as applying financial expertise to convert compensation data into damages.

    The Court concluded that Fuller’s methodology is straightforward but reliable for the limited purpose it serves. 

    II. Admissibility Under Rule 403

    Plaintiff argued that permitting Fuller to testify would unfairly prejudice the jury because cloaking simple arithmetic in the authority of expert testimony would lend improper weight to Defendant’s damages claim. Defendant responded that any weaknesses in Fuller’s analysis can be explored on cross-examination and that the testimony poses no risk of confusion or undue prejudice.

    The Court agreed with Defendant. Fuller’s testimony, though based on simple calculations, is probative of Defendant’s damages theory. Concerns about the simplicity of the arithmetic are properly addressed through cross-examination and competing evidence, not exclusion under Rule 403.

    Held

    The Court denied Plaintiff Alorica Inc.’s motion to strike and exclude Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc.’s expert David Fuller.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court found that Fuller applied his methodology consistently and transparently to the facts. While his calculations are not complex, they are replicable and tied to the data sources identified. To the extent Plaintiff believed Fuller should have done more independent verification, those criticisms are better addressed through cross-examination than exclusion.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Alorica Inc. V. Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc.
    Docket Number: 4:24cv30
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division
    Order Date: September 05, 2025
  • Telephone Expert’s Testimony on the Reliability of Ytel Records Admitted

    Telephone Expert’s Testimony on the Reliability of Ytel Records Admitted

    Michael Anthony (“Plaintiff”) filed this putative class action against The Federal Savings Bank (“FSB”), National Bancorp Holdings, Inc. (“NBH”), and FDE Marketing Group, LLC (“FDE”) (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).

    The Plaintiff filed a motion to bar defense expert Jan Kostyun while Defendants filed a cross-motion to bar Plaintiff’s expert Aaron D. Woolfson.

    Telecommunications Expert Witness

    Jan Kostyun is an independent technology consultant with over 35 years of experience covering the areas of telecommunications, enterprise architecture, and information technologies.

    He developed expertise in areas such as landline and wireless order entry, including the collection of subscriber contact information and initial implementation of the National Do Not Call registry and has extensive experience in database methodologies, data analysis, and data mining in addition to call center operations and various dialing systems, including those used for inbound and outbound calling campaigns. He has personally performed database queries and data analysis against hundreds of data stores [such as] National Do Not Call lists, Wireless Block identifiers, Number Portability transaction lists and telephone call records produced by both wireless carriers and businesses involved in dialing campaigns.

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

    Telephone Expert Witness

    Aaron David Woolfson has over 25 years of experience in developing and analyzing databases and telephone systems and establishing the interfaces between telephone systems and the networks that convey calls.

    He has been qualified as an expert in other TCPA cases requiring him to analyze call records and compare them against records of leads.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Aaron Woolfson’s Expert Report

    Woolfson reached three conclusions after reviewing call detail records (“CDRs”) obtained from Ytel, FDE’s carrier: (1) that “there is a reliable method to identify which calls in the call records were made to telephone numbers (a) to which two or more times were called in a twelve month period by [FDE], and (b) that were registered with the [Registry] for more than thirty days before each of the calls”; (2) that “using the CDRs and Defendants’ call transfer logs, there is a reliable method to identify the calls in the CDRs that were to phone numbers that also appear in the call transfer log (“Live Transfers”); and (3) that he is “able to identify contact information, including names and mailing addresses, related to the individuals to whom the calls were placed, based upon the records that are maintained by phone carriers in their ordinary course of business.”

    Defendants’ critique of Woolfson’s opinion essentially falls into two buckets—(1) disagreements about how he interpreted certain datapoints to reach his specific conclusions; and (2) concerns about the difficulties of his proposed process for identifying class members.

    First, with respect to the underlying data relied upon by Woolfson, the parties agreed that the Ytel CDRs do not include call disposition information that affirmatively indicates if every telephone call placed by FDE actually connected to an active number on the Registry. Because of that, Woolfson determined that an appropriate measure of this critical detail was call duration.

    Specifically, Woolfson sufficiently explained the process he used to query the data and then analyze the output. Basically, the Court found that Defendants attacked the reliability of Woolfson’s conclusions and whether they
    are supported by the data, not the validity of the methodology he employed in forming his opinions.

    Jan Kostyun’s Rebuttal Expert Report

    Defendants offered the opinion of their rebuttal expert, Kostyun, in seeking to bar Woolfson’s testimony.

    Plaintiff contended that Kostyun’s methodology is not reproducible, as evidenced by his deposition testimony that he ran “hundreds and hundreds of queries against the data” which he cannot itemize or reproduce.

    Defendants explained that Kostyun’s analysis “was undertaken in a forensic manner” that involved both “simplistic” and “more complex” queries of the data, and the “entire database and structure” were produced to Plaintiff.

    However, Plaintiff never contended that Kostyun used an unacceptable methodology for the relevant industry. The Daubert inquiry focuses on assessing if Kostyun’s methodology lacks analytically sound bases, not if his rebuttal opinions are correct.

    Held

    The Court denied both Plaintiff’s motion to bar defense expert Jan Kostyun and Defendants’ cross-motion to bar Plaintiff’s expert Aaron Woolfson.

    Key Takeaway:

    Both sides argued at length in their extensive briefs that the opposing expert has erroneously interpreted the relevant data, and as a result, the opinions reached are wrong. But such “arguments about how the selection of data inputs affect the merits of the conclusions produced by an accepted methodology” are substantive considerations rather than proper Daubert challenges.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Anthony V. The Federal Savings Bank Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:21cv2509
    Court Name: United States District Court, Illinois Northern
    Order Date: September 23, 2025
  • Economics Expert’s Testimony on Loss of Society Excluded

    Economics Expert’s Testimony on Loss of Society Excluded

    This is a medical negligence case filed by Plaintiff Tanya Soule, as holder of Power of Attorney for Marlene Do, her mother, a currently disabled adult, and Long Do, her husband. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were negligent in failing to timely diagnose and manage Marelene’s ischemic stroke on December 11, 2019.

    Subsequently, Defendants Blessing Hospital; Scott Hough, M.D.; Shaila O’Dear, R.N.; Jason Little, APRN; Kristin Hampton, R.N.; Angelo Liana, M.D.; and Rebecca Dennison, R.N. filed a motion to exclude all but the present value of future life care opinion testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witness on economics, Stan Smith, PhD.

    Economics Expert Witness

    Stan V. Smith, PhD is the President of Smith Economics Group, Ltd., headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, which provides economic and financial consulting nationwide.

    Moreover, Smith has worked as an economic and financial consultant since 1974. He has performed economic analysis in a variety of cases, including personal injury and wrongful death actions. Smith has over 40 years of experience in the field of economics and wrote the first textbook on Forensic Economic Damages. 

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendants sought to bar Smith from providing testimony at trial regarding purported loss of household/ family services sustained by Long Do, hedonic damages sustained by Marlene, and loss of society or relationship sustained by Long. Specifically, Defendants contend all of these opinions are based on methodologies that are unreliable and are not supported by facts specific to Marlene.

    Loss of Household/Family Services

    With respect to household/family services, Smith’s opinions included two subcategories alleged to be sustained by Long Do: (a) loss of housekeeping and household management services; and (b) loss of advice, counsel, guidance, instruction, and training services. Defendants argued that these damages are speculative and would not assist the jury.

    For example, regarding loss of housekeeping and household management services, Smith opined that Long suffered a loss in the amount of $378,775. Essentially, Smith multiplied the amount of time it would take a non-professional to complete a particular task by the costs it would take to hire a professional.

    In addition, Smith included a 50% non-wage component to the hourly wage rate. However, he acknowledged that Marlene was not a professional of any trade upon which he relied. Furthermore, he did not ask Marlene or Long whether they paid for any of the services considered. Smith admitted the calculation is his “estimate of the market value of the services performed by a female in the household on average.”

    To illustrate, Smith created three tables to show his calculations for past and future loss of housekeeping and household management services. He then created a similar calculation to opine on the monetary loss of advice, counsel, guidance, instruction, and training services for Long.

    Specifically, Smith assumed a loss of one hour per day for these advisory services based solely on his interview with Marlene’s daughter.

    On the other hand, Plaintiffs noted that loss of household services is a compensable form of injury. They alleged that Smith’s testimony involves the loss of household services sustained by the family from the time of Defendants’ alleged negligence through Marlene’s life expectancy.

    Conclusion

    The Court allowed Smith’s testimony regarding the loss of housekeeping and household management services while excluding his testimony concerning the loss of advice, counsel, guidance, institution, and training services.

    C. Hedonic Damages

    Smith opined on the reduction in value of life or loss of enjoyment of life for Marlene. Plaintiffs claimed that the hedonic value of life refers to the value of the pleasure, the satisfaction, or the utility that human beings derive from life, separate and apart from the labor or earnings of life.

    In his report, Smith stated that his “estimate of the value of life is consistent with estimates published in other studies that examine and review the broad range of economic literature on the value of life.”

    Smith estimated the value of life “to be approximately $5.9 million in year 2023 dollars.” Defendants noted that Smith only interviewed Marlene’s daughter. He did not interview Marlene or Long.

    Smith provided a “lower estimated impairment rating” and an “upper estimated impairment rating,” based on his range for either 50% or 80% reduction in value of life. Pursuant to his methodology, Smith estimated a total loss of value of life of $1,954,626 for 50% reduction and a total of $3,127,391 for 80% reduction. To determine future loss, Smith accounted for a discount factor to create a present value. He then arrived at the value of hedonic damages by reducing the $5.9 million by the percentage of disability he believes Marlene has suffered-either 50% or 80%. Defendants noted that Smith did not consult with a single medical professional to arrive at his impairment rating.

    Conclusion

    Defendants alleged that federal and state courts have routinely barred Smith’s testimony as to hedonic damages.

    After considering Smith’s testimony on hedonic damages, the Court agreed with the reasoning of the overwhelming majority of federal district courts. Therefore, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to the extent it sought exclusion of Smith’s testimony on hedonic damages.

    Loss of Society or Relationship for Long Do

    To begin with, Smith presented his opinions on loss of society or relationship relating to Long Do. In particular, Plaintiffs noted that Illinois law recognizes loss of society or relationship as a recoverable pecuniary loss. In other words, this is the total value of loss of society or relationship Long did and will suffer due to Marlene’s alleged injuries. Specifically, Smith testified that the loss is “the loss of love and affection that he has sustained, the loss of the quality of the relationship that he had that has impacted his quality of life.”

    Defendants noted that Smith calculated loss of society in the same manner as his calculation for reduction in value/hedonic damages for Marlene. This loss is calculated from 2019 through 2030, which ends at Long’s estimated life span of 81 years old. Smith picked $5.9 million as the value of each human life in 2023 dollars. He then arrived at the value of hedonic damages by reducing the $5.9 million by the percentage of disability he believes Marlene has suffered. For loss of society, Smith chose 50% disability. He determined Long’s loss of society was $403,273. For future loss, Smith accounts for a discount factor to create a present value.

    Conclusion

    As Defendants alleged, the jury is capable of processing that information to calculate damages guided by their observations, experience, and sense of fairness. The Court held that Smith’s opinions on this topic are speculative and potentially misleading in focusing on the statistically average person instead of the individuals in this case.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion to exclude the opinions of Plaintiffs’ economic expert Stan Smith, Ph.D.

    Key Takeaway:

    Rule 702 requires a flexible inquiry and recognizes that the accuracy of proposed expert testimony can be explored adequately via the normal adversarial process of “vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof.”

    It is “the soundness and care with which the expert arrived at her opinion” that is the focus of the inquiry and not “the ultimate correctness of the expert’s conclusions.”

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Do Et Al V. Blessing Hospital, A Corporation Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:20cv1398
    Court Name: United States District Court, Illinois Central
    Order Date: September 23, 2025
  • Nursing Expert’s Life Care Plan Opinions Limited

    Nursing Expert’s Life Care Plan Opinions Limited

    This is a medical negligence case filed by Plaintiff Tanya Soule, as holder of Power of Attorney for Marlene Do, her mother, a currently disabled adult, and Long Do, her husband. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants were negligent in failing to timely diagnose and manage Marelene’s ischemic stroke on December 11, 2019.

    Defendants Blessing Hospital; Scott Hough, M.D.; Shaila O’Dear, R.N.; Jason Little, APRN; Kristin Hampton, R.N.; Angelo Liana, M.D.; and Rebecca Dennison, R.N. filed a motion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to bar Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Nurse Linda K. Schwieger, RN, CNLCP, CBIS, from testifying because she is not qualified to testify on future costs derivative of medical coding decisions and her life care plan is unsupported by medical evidence and fails to account for preexisting injuries. 

    Nursing Expert Witness

    Linda K. Wilson-Schwieger, RN, CNLCP, CBIS is a certified nurse life care planner and certified brain injury specialist who has spent the last 19 years developing life care plans. She is a member of the American Association of Nurse Life Care Planners, where she spent two years as the National Conference Chairperson, a member of the American Association of Legal Nurse Consultants, where she served as President of her chapter, and a member of the International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    In seeking exclusion, Defendants noted that Schwieger conceded through her discovery deposition that she has no training, education, or experience in medical coding. Defendants claimed that this is significant because her cost opinions related to a portion of her life care plan derive from her independent medical coding decisions. Additionally, because her opinions are not supported by independent admissible evidence, Schwieger’s future cost opinions are irrelevant. Finally, Schwieger failed to account for whether Marlene would have needed the items and services in her life care plan due to her preexisting conditions.

    B. Qualifications to Testify on Future Costs Using Medical Coding Decisions

    Defendants contended that, despite Schwieger’s lack of training, education, or experience in the world of medical coding, she selected the second highest code and cost available for every physician service in Marlene’s life care plan.

    Defendants contended that Schwieger’s life care plan opinion associated with (1) Physician Care; (2) Diagnostics; and (3) Physical, Occupational, and Speech-Language Therapies should be excluded because, based on the complexity of medical coding and given that she has not been trained or educated on how to select an appropriate medical code, she is not qualified under Daubert to render such opinions.

    Given the nature and complexity of medical coding and the fact that Schwieger has no training, education, or experience in selecting medical codes for a patient, the Court concludes Schwieger lacked the requisite specialized knowledge under Rule 702 to select medical codes. Significantly, Schwieger did not base the medical codes she selected on codes that had previously been selected by healthcare providers. Instead, she independently selected medical codes that she believes may be selected by Marlene’s future healthcare providers. Her decision as to the appropriate code was “based on the complexity of what I know about [Marlene] and her issues.” However, Schwieger admitted that she is not qualified to make medical diagnoses and must rely upon decisions made by Marlene’s treating physicians.

    Therefore, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to the extent it sought the exclusion of Schwieger’s life care plan opinions premised upon her medical coding selections: (1) Physician Care, (2) Diagnostics, and (3) Physical, Occupational, and Speech-Language Therapies.

    C. Medical Evidence in Support of Life Care Plan

    Defendants next contended that Schwieger’s life care plan is unsupported by medical evidence and fails to account for preexisting injuries. Specifically, she failed to collaborate with a physician for most of the opinions and did not account for Marlene’s preexisting conditions in developing her life care plan. 

    Plaintiffs argued that Schwieger relied on the medical opinions of a board-certified physical medicine and rehabilitation physician who has cared for thousands of stroke patients over the last 15 years, when drafting the life care plan. Schwieger also reviewed Marlene’s medical records and the deposition testimony of two of her medical providers. As a result, the Court concluded that the information is sufficiently reliable and relevant to assist the factfinder.

    Defendants further noted that Schwieger was aware that, prior to her December 2019 stroke, Marlene had a debilitating condition known as rheumatoid arthritis, which resulted in her being on social security disability for two decades. Defendants contended that Schwieger failed to consider Marlene’s preexisting condition. However, while Plaintiffs appeared not to have disclosed any physicians to differentiate which items and services in Schwieger’s life care plan would have been needed if Marlene had not suffered a stroke, Mathew’s testimony touches on the issue.

    Thus, the Court declined to bar Schwieger’s testimony as to the life care plans.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ motion to bar the testimony of Linda Schwieger, RN, CNLCP, CBIS.

    Key Takeaway:

    While Schwieger lacked the requisite specialized knowledge under Rule 702 to select medical codes, Schwieger’s review of Marlene’s medical records, review of the deposition testimony of her treating physicians, her nursing assessment of Marlene, and Schwieger’s own education, training, and experience, all formed the factual basis of her life care plan. 

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Do Et Al V. Blessing Hospital, A Corporation Et Al
    Docket Number: 1:20cv1398
    Court Name: United States District Court, Illinois Central
    Order Date: September 19, 2025