Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Tire

  • Transportation Safety Expert Barred from Offering Opinions on Kent & Smith’s Safety Culture

    Transportation Safety Expert Barred from Offering Opinions on Kent & Smith’s Safety Culture

    This suit arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 7, 2018, in Vinton, Louisiana. Plaintiffs alleged that Billy Smith was operating a 2016 Kenworth T880 while traveling westbound on Interstate 10 on that date.

    The vehicle was outfitted with Chinese-manufactured steel belt radial truck tires, distributed by CMA under the trade name “Double Coin tires.” The accident occurred when Smith’s tires suffered a catastrophic tread/belt separation, overturning the vehicle and severely injuring Smith. Smith passed away on September 4, 2021, and his surviving spouse and four adult children were substituted as Plaintiffs.

    Defendants sought to introduce testimony from Dr. Richard W. Carr as an expert in the fields of trucking industry maintenance practices and trucking fleet and driver management standards. Carr offered opinions regarding alleged deficiencies in Smith’s licensure and driving conduct as well as in the maintenance of the vehicle and other practices by his employer, Kent & Smith Holdings, LLC.

    Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude Carr’s testimony under the standards set forth in Rule 702 and Daubert.

    Transportation Safety Expert Witness

    Richard W. Carr Ph.D., CDS is the principal of R W Carr, Inc., a Risk Management & Safety Consulting corporation based in Jacksonville, Florida, which primarily serves the transportation industry, construction industry, insurance industry, the legal profession, and the U.S. Government.

    He has also worked as a Special Investigator and Accident Investigation Specialist for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. He has specialized training from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Penn State University, Northwestern University, Kennedy Western University, Georgia Tech, the National Nuclear Security Administration, and others.

    Carr holds a Ph.D in Safety Engineering and has served as an expert witness in several cases over the last four years.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Richard Carr

    Plaintiffs did not challenge Carr’s qualifications but instead maintained that he lacked an adequate basis for the following opinions: (1) Billy Smith was not properly licensed at the time of the incident and failed to report vibrations in the steering wheel; (2) Kent & Smith lacked an adequate preventative maintenance program given their operational conditions; (3) Kent & Smith improperly allowed a plugged tire to remain in use; (4) Kent & Smith failed to retain and secure documentation post-accident relating to the subject vehicle and Smith; and (5) Kent & Smith’s alleged carrier violations four years after the accident are evidence of a culture of committing carrier violations around the time of the accident.

    Smith’s Licensure and Failure to Report Steering Wheel Vibrations

    In his deposition Carr opined that he “did not believe Smith had a valid CDL driver’s license at the time of this accident” because the copy contained in his Kent & Smith driver record had an expiration date of September 5, 2018, with no indication of renewal. Carr admitted, however, that he could not say one way or another whether the license had been renewed and that he had made no independent attempt to verify renewal. In response, Plaintiffs showed that a Class A CDL was issued to Smith on June 18, 2018, with expiration date of September 05, 2024.

    Defendants maintained that Carr nonetheless had an adequate basis to reach his conclusion on Smith’s license status, based on the contents of his Kent & Smith driver’s record. Even if Smith was properly licensed at the time of the accident, the fact that his employer’s records indicated he was not may fall short of the standard of care. Further, they complained that the valid driver’s license is not Bates-stamped and was never produced in discovery.

    The Court agreed that the record provided an adequate basis for Carr to opine that there was no evidence in Kent & Smith’s files at the time of the accident that Billy Smith was properly licensed.

    Plaintiffs argued that Carr assumed based on defense expert Michael Grima’s report that the steering wheel was vibrating and then further assumed from the lack of documentation that Smith felt these vibrations and failed to report them.

    The Court found that Carr is adequately qualified to opine on not just if but how Smith should have reported this effect—by formally recording it in his inspection reports. As he noted, the purpose of the reports was to identify issues so that they could be repaired.

    Inadequate Preventative Maintenance Program

    Carr also criticized Kent & Smith for failing to maintain an adequate preventative maintenance program. He based his assumptions about the lack of adequate maintenance on the extent of wear and tear visible on the tires in photographs. He could not cite an industry standard or state specifically how often Kent & Smith should have been inspecting the tires of its fleet, noting that he did not have a copy of the company’s maintenance schedule. Instead, he described his own experience operating a truck over gravel and how it necessitated replacement of the tires after only 50,000 miles. 

    While Plaintiffs write this off as anecdotal, the Court held that Carr’s experience is highly relevant to the tires at issue and their working conditions, and he applied this lens when reviewing the photographs and maintenance records. 

    Allowing a Plugged Tire to Remain in Use

    Carr noted that the right front steering tire had been plugged at least three times. Plaintiffs challenged this opinion because Carr never conducted a firsthand examination of the subject tire. But Carr reviewed photographs as well as the report of Grima, who found evidence of prior punctures.

    As Defendants noted, “[e]very expert who has reviewed the tire has noted the numerous punctures on the tire, the stone drilling in the tire, and the wear of the tire. These facts are not in dispute.” In other words, Carr’s extrapolation, based on testimony that Plaintiffs failed to refute, that leaving such a tire on the steering axle violated Kent & Smith policy appeared to be on solid footing.

    Failure to Retain and Secure Documentation

    In his deposition Carr pointed to deficiencies in Kent & Smith’s record retention. Plaintiffs then pressed him as to whether any such failures contributed to the accident. Carr responded: “By them not providing documents, it did not contribute to the cause of the accident, but it might have inhibited or changed opinions, or aided in the scope and process of the ongoing litigation related and caused by the accident.” 

    Plaintiffs objected that this opinion was irrelevant because, as Carr admitted, any record retention deficiencies did not cause the accident. But, as he explained, the absence of records could have inhibited investigation of the accident and a discovery of its contributing factors. Additionally, the Court held that Carr is adequately qualified through his industry experience, including a stint as an investigator for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”), to reach this opinion.

    Kent & Smith’s Culture

    Finally, Carr asserted in his deposition that Kent & Smith had a “culture” of violating safety regulations based on its record from August 2022 to August 2024. Plaintiffs thus moved to exclude this opinion, arguing that testimony regarding Kent & Smith’s subsequent violations is prohibited under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).

    Defendants made no argument in support of the relevance of the subsequent violations. The Court agreed that, even if they were offered for some purpose under Rule 404(b) other than showing Kent & Smith’s bad character, they have no probative value because they occurred four to six years subsequent to the subject accident. The motion is therefore granted to the extent that Carr is prohibited from referencing these violations or opining on Kent & Smith’s safety culture at the time of the accident based on its 2022-2024 record. This limitation, however, did not prevent Carr from opining on Kent & Smith’s compliance with DOT and FMCSA practices at the time of the accident based on other, more contemporaneous records.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ expert Richard W. Carr.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Experts are permitted to rely on their own relevant experience—including anecdotal cases. It is the responsibility of opposing counsel to explore the factual basis for the opinion and thus, determine its reliability.
    • An expert may rely on hearsay, including other expert reports, in forming his opinions. Although the Court found that Grima lacked an adequate basis for his main conclusions and that his testimony would not be helpful for the jury, there is no basis to doubt his findings as to the effects that the tire’s condition would have on the vehicle’s operations. Likewise, Carr was adequately qualified to opine on not just if but how Smith should have reported this effect—by formally recording it in his inspection reports.

    Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

    Tire Expert’s Impact Damage Theory Admitted

    Forensic Pathology Expert’s Conclusions About the Cause of Death Admitted

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Smith V. China Manufacturers Alliance LLC Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:19cv1111
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Western
    Order Date: July 16, 2025
  • Forensic Pathology Expert’s Conclusions About the Cause of Death Admitted

    Forensic Pathology Expert’s Conclusions About the Cause of Death Admitted

    This suit arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 7, 2018, in Vinton, Louisiana. Plaintiffs alleged that Billy Smith was operating a 2016 Kenworth T880 while traveling westbound on Interstate 10 on that date.

    The vehicle was outfitted with Chinese-manufactured steel belt radial truck tires, distributed by CMA under the trade name “Double Coin tires.” The accident occurred when Smith’s tires suffered a catastrophic tread/belt separation, overturning the vehicle and severely injuring Smith. Smith passed away on September 4, 2021, and his surviving spouse and four adult children were substituted as Plaintiffs. 

    Defendants sought to introduce testimony from forensic pathologist, Dr. Franklin J. Peretti. Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude that testimony under the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.

    Peretti conducted the only autopsy on Smith. Plaintiffs did not challenge his qualifications but maintained that he lacked a sufficient factual basis for his opinions because he did not have Smith’s complete medical records when he conducted the autopsy.

    Forensic Pathology Expert Witness

    Dr. Franklin Joseph Peretti  is a forensic pathologist with over 30 years of experience.  He has served as associate or assistant medical examiner for the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, the Baltimore Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, and the Rhode Island Medical Examiner’s Office.

    Discover more cases with Frank J. Peretti as an expert witness by ordering his comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Peretti admitted at his deposition that he was not given any medical records or history at the time of the autopsy. Since that time, and before his deposition, he reviewed the death certificate provided by Calcasieu Parish coroner Dr. Terry Welke (who performed a limited post-mortem examination in lieu of an autopsy), the report of Plaintiffs’ treating neurologist Dr. David Weir (who did not examine Smith after his death), and the report and deposition of Plaintiffs’ consulting neurologist, Dr. Ian Hood (who never examined Smith). 

    He admitted that all of the information with the exception of Hood’s report was only provided to him on the morning of his deposition. He also admitted that it was “sort of an unfair autopsy” because he lacked any information at the time, including the death certificate.

    Because of the lack of medical history, he did not fix the brain in formalin and perform a neuropathic examination. He advised, however, that he was not adverse to changing his opinion on a cause of death if provided with sufficient evidence. He found no basis in the reports provided to do so.

    Analysis

    Drs. Hood, Weir, and Welke came to a different conclusion on Smith’s cause of death, and will be able to defend that conclusion at trial based on their familiarity with the alleged progression of Smith’s neurological injury if properly qualified. But Peretti is a qualified forensic pathologist and performed the only autopsy in this matter.

    He examined Smith’s brain and, even after reviewing the relevant medical opinions, found no basis to change his conclusion. Plaintiffs may cross-examine him as to the sufficiency of his autopsy and what findings he might have missed without a neuropathic examination. The Court held, however, that they failed to show that his conclusions were so unfounded as to provide no aid to the jury under Rule 702.

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Defendants’ expert Franklin Peretti.

    Key Takeaway:

    Peretti did not have Smith’s complete medical records when he conducted the autopsy. He admitted as much. However, Peretti examined Smith’s brain and, even after reviewing the relevant medical opinions, found no basis to change his conclusion. Peretti is, after all, a qualified forensic pathologist and performed the only autopsy in this matter.

    Rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule, and the court’s role as gatekeeper “does not replace the traditional adversary system and the place of the jury within the system.”

    Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

    Tire Expert’s Impact Damage Theory Admitted

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Smith V. China Manufacturers Alliance LLC Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:19cv1111
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Western
    Order Date: July 02, 2025
  • Tire Expert’s Impact Damage Theory Admitted

    Tire Expert’s Impact Damage Theory Admitted

    This suit arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 7, 2018, in Vinton, Louisiana. Plaintiffs alleged that Billy Smith was operating a 2016 Kenworth T880 while traveling westbound on Interstate 10 on that date.

    The vehicle was outfitted with Chinese-manufactured steel belt radial truck tires, distributed by CMA under the trade name “Double Coin tires.” The accident occurred when Smith’s tires suffered a catastrophic tread/belt separation, overturning the vehicle and severely injuring Smith. Smith passed away on September 4, 2021, and his surviving spouse and four adult children were substituted as Plaintiffs. 

    Defendants sought to introduce testimony from tire failure expert Joseph L. Grant. Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude that testimony under the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert.

    Tire Expert Witness 

    Joseph Lawrence Grant possesses over thirty years of experience as a forensic tire analyst, along with over fifty years of experience in the tire industry. He has held multiple managerial and directorial positions during his employment with tire manufacturing companies and has been published several times. 

    Want to know more about the challenges Joseph L. Grant has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Plaintiffs contended that Grant’s testimony is unreliable because: (1) he did not review the tire’s design or manufacturing specifications, (2) there is little evidence supporting his theory of impact damage causing the tire’s failure, and (3) he failed to exclude possible alternative causes.

    Review of design and manufacturing specifications

    A physical examination of both the tire and its companion tire, as well as each tire’s wheel, allowed Grant to form his opinion on why the tire failed. If the cause of the tire’s failure can be diagnosed through physical examination, the Court held that reviewing the tire’s specifications may not be necessary. In other words, Grant’s findings are not unreliable simply because he reached them without reviewing certain documents.

    Challenges to Grant’s impact damage theory

    Grant opined that an earlier impact weakened the tire’s durability, and subsequent use of the then damaged tire eventually caused it to fail, leading to the accident at issue.

    The Court found Grant’s opinion to be supported because under the Examinations section of his report, Grant observed several detached steel belts and rusted steel cords on the tire. He reasoned that the steel belt detachments resulted from an impact to the tire, which was left either unrepaired or improperly repaired. The steel cords, then left exposed, were able to rust, severely weakening the tire. After prolonged use, the tire ultimately failed.

    Grant noted that, upon a physical examination, the steel cords were not faulty and were in line with industry standards. Moreover, Grant observed many penetrations within the tire’s tread, indicating that it “had been used in service [in areas] where the tire was subjected to conditions” that would likely cause impact damages to occur. 

    The Court found fault with Plaintiffs’ assertion that Grant could not identify what caused the impact considering Grant did identify the impact object as having “an [approximately] half-inch diameter.”

    While any number of potential impact objects could possess a similar diameter, it is reasonable that an expert like Grant could diagnose impact damage as the cause of a tire’s failure but be unable to identify the particular object that impacted the tire. 

    Besides, Grant cited several academic papers and guides as authorities supporting his conclusions. Grant listed the case-specific materials he reviewed when forming his opinion. Among them are his physical examination of the tire, companion tire, and their wheels; x-rays and photographs of the tire; the accident report; and Plaintiff’s responses. 

    Challenges to Grant’s failure to consider alternative causes

    Finally, Plaintiffs argued that Grant failed to exclude other potential causes of the tire’s failure. In his report, Grant excluded a design or manufacturing defect from having caused the tire’s failure. He found that the tire complied with federal regulations and industry standards, because it had been tested and stamped. Grant explained that, in order to be sold, all tire must “pass a series of durability standards,” including strength and endurance tests. The subject tire was properly stamped as having passed those tests.

    Furthermore, Grant referred to a 2005 NHTSA publication, which stated that “design and manufacturing defects are extremely rare,” because the tire industry has committed decades of research to ensuring functional, defect-free products. Noting this, Grant determined that neither a design or manufacturing defect could have caused the tire’s failure and excluded both as alternative causes. Therefore, the Court found no basis for excluding Grant’s testimony. 

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiff’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Joseph L. Grant.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Grant’s findings are not inaccurate simply because he reached them without needing to review certain documents. The Court held that any challenge to his conclusions on this ground is more appropriate for cross-examination.
    • The Court held that Grant’s finding of impact damage as the cause of the tire’s failure was a reasonable conclusion.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Smith V. China Manufacturers Alliance LLC Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:19cv1111
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Western
    Order Date: July 1, 2025
  • Trucking Expert Witness deemed unqualified to testify about likely cause of tire blowout

    Trucking Expert Witness deemed unqualified to testify about likely cause of tire blowout

    Plaintiff, Robin D. Post sued Defendant, Dennis J. Zimmerman following a highway accident on December 23, 2019 when Defendant John H. Kaser, Plaintiff, and Zimmerman—in that order—were traveling eastbound on Highway 24 in Osborne County, Kansas. Plaintiff rode in a Chevrolet Equinox while Defendants Kaser and Zimmerman each drove semi-trucks. The Plaintiff was rear-ended by Zimmerman after a tire on Kaser’s trailer failed.

    Plaintiff sought punitive damages against both Kaser and Zimmerman as well as their employers, Kendall L. Nichols and Dale R. Hanchett. Plaintiff also asserted vicarious negligence theories, including negligence per se, based on Kaser and Zimmerman’s actions while suing Nichols and Hanchett.

    Plaintiff retained Adam Grill to offer expert testimony about commercial truck driving and tire blowout causation. Defendants Kendall Nichols and John Kaser filed a motion to exclude Grill, arguing that his opinions failed to meet the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. They specifically targeted Grill’s opinion regarding the contribution of overloading and poor maintenance to the tire blowout on Defendant Kaser’s trailer. Defendants claim that Grill lacked the necessary skill, training, experience, or education to offer such opinions. However, they did not seek to exclude all of Grill’s testimony and instead limited it to Grill’s opinions on tire blowout causation. Plaintiff opposed the motion. 

    Trucking Expert Witness 

    Adam Grill has worked around large commercial vehicles and studied the intricacies of commercial vehicle transportation among the best in the industry. He received his certification as a commercial vehicle operator in 2005. He holds a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) with endorsements for hazardous materials, tankers, double trailers, triple trailers, passenger buses, and school buses. He is a certified director of safety (CDS). He is certified for forklift operation, operation of longer combination vehicles (LCVs), crane hoist and rigging, aerial manlift, telehandler, and heavy equipment including payloaders and motor graders. He is a certified pilot car operator and flagger through Gulf Coast Community College in Panama City, Florida. For eight years he served in the US Army and US Army National Guard where he was called upon to teach truck and heavy vehicle operation and driver safety, among other duties. He is currently an active truck driver, and an associate of Atlantic Pacific Resource Group.

    Discussion by the Court

    The expert report proffered by Grill was divided into two sections. The report’s first section provided opinions about commercial truck driving safety, addressing the responsibilities of Co-Defendants Zimmerman and Hanchett Farms. The second section attributed the tire blowout suffered by the trailer Kaser was hauling to the constant weight putting strain on the tires considering the trailers routinely ranged in the area of 80,000 pounds plus to above 90,000 pounds per load, besides poor maintenance and continual overloading. Grill’s report implied that Defendants Nichols and Kaser should assume responsibility for the same.

    Grill, in order to provide a complete statement of all opinions he would express and the basis and reasons for them under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)(i), included scale tickets produced by Nichols Farm showing that, over a seven month period, the Nichols Farms’ vehicles which operated on roadways weighed between 54,120 and 99,520 pounds as well as extensive quotations from three sources about those sources’ views on the causes of tire blowouts to support his opinion that a tire failure sometimes results from the stresses that heavily loaded and overloaded trucks add to. However, the Court noted that Grill’s report failed to identify any other material about the basis and reasons to establish poor maintenance and continual overloading as the likely causes of tire failure.

    Defendants argued that Grill lacked relevant experience or training in investigating causes of tire blowouts and did not demonstrate specialized knowledge about the subject. In her response, Plaintiff mentioned Grill’s 15 years of combined experience as a truck driver, truck-driving instructor, truck-driving consultant, accident investigator, and forklift and heavy equipment operator, in addition to  a commercial driver’s license with hazardous materials and various endorsements. Plaintiff contended that Grill had the expertise to identify when a truck including its tires is in such a defective state.

    The Court, after reviewing Grill’s CV and his report’s contents, observed that he lacked the pertinent knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. The Court also noted that Grill’s CV barely referred to tires except for a project started in 2016 about the assessment of truck safety technologies which included “tire pressure monitoring” systems and tire pressure balancing systems. But the project did not sufficiently establish that Grill was qualified under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 to testify about the causes of fire blowouts or about poor maintenance and continual overloading being a likely contributor to the tire’s failure.

    As for the reasoning or methodology underlying Grill’s tire failure opinion, Defendant argued that Grill based his opinions on his review, first, of photographs of the blown out trailer tire (taken after the accident) and, second, of weight tickets which identify the weights of different loads hauled on the trailer defendant Kaser’s truck was pulling when the accident occurred. The Court held that Grill’s report demonstrated that his opinion that heavily loaded and overloaded trucks were known to add to the stress that could ultimately cause a tire failure lacked a reliable basis in knowledge and experience considering the only reasoning Grill provided to support this opinion followed immediately after, three long quotations of generalized opinions from Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel, Roane Transportation, and Middleton & Meads Co. The Court citing United States v. Pablo, 696 F.3d 1280, 1288 (10th Cir. 2012), held that an expert may not appropriate someone else’s opinion, reprint it in a report, and then testify about what someone else—someone not subject to cross examination—has opined. The Court noted that Grill’s borrowed testimony was only connected to the facts of this case by “ipse dixit” assertions. For instance, Grill opined poor maintenance and continual overloading was also a likely contributor to the tire failure without explaining how Defendants poorly maintained or overloaded the tire which failed.

    Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ motion to exclude Grill’s testimony about tire failure causation by explaining the case’s discovery timeline. She noted that Grill had issued his report in October 2022. Plaintiff took Nichols and Kaser’s deposition about five months later, on April 10 and 11, 2023. She contended that this timeline had deprived Grill of the evidence acquired in the Kaser and Nichols depositions to use in his expert report. Plaintiff reported that Grill had since reviewed the deposition evidence, and it hadn’t changed his opinions. She also reported that Grill “was willing to submit an additional report addressing these” methodology and reasoning issues.

    Unfortunately, Federal Rules of Evidence 26 provides that expert witnesses are required to provide a written report which must consist of a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them and if by any chance, it comes to the parties’ attention that the disclosure is incomplete in any material respect, it has to be supplemented or corrected immediately. The disclosing party also may make the supplemental material known to the opposing parties in some other fashion but the Plaintiff did not indicate that she had supplemented Grill’s report or conveyed to the Defendants that he had developed additional reasoning for his opinions. Henceforth, the Plaintiff’s timeline argument failed to persuade the Court.

    To conclude, Grill’s expert opinions failed Daubert step one. Plaintiff failed to establish that Grill was qualified to offer expert opinions about tire blowout causation, and that Grill based his tire causation opinion on sufficient facts and data. The Court held that because Grill failed Daubert step one—reliability—it need not progress to Daubert step two and inquire about the testimony’s relevance.

    Held

    The Court excluded the tire failure causation opinions expressed in expert Adam Grill’s expert report but deferred judgment on Grill’s testimony on commercial truck driving.

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

    Key Takeaways:

    Expert witnesses must demonstrate relevant experience, training, or education to support their opinions effectively. Moreover, expert opinions must be based on sufficient facts, data, and reliable methodology, with clear reasoning provided to justify their conclusions. Failure to disclose complete information or supplement the report as necessary can jeopardize the admissibility of the testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence. Experts should be prepared to withstand cross-examination regarding the basis of their opinions, ensuring credibility and reliability. Additionally, experts should review new evidence and be willing to update their opinions as necessary to maintain relevance and accuracy. Courts play a crucial role in evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony through standards like the Daubert test, which assesses both reliability and relevance. If expert opinions fail to meet the reliability threshold, they may be excluded from consideration by the court, highlighting the importance of thorough and transparent expert testimony in legal proceedings.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Post V. Hanchett Et Al
    Docket Number: 2:21cv2587
    Court: United States District Court, Kansas
    Citation: 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21398
    Order Date: February 7, 2024