Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Unqualified

  • Neuropsychology Expert Witness Fails to Provide Any Basis for His Opinion On the Costs of Healthcare

    Neuropsychology Expert Witness Fails to Provide Any Basis for His Opinion On the Costs of Healthcare

    In May 2023, Joy and Brian Parnes filed this lawsuit against the Orange County School Board for disability discrimination and retaliation related to the education of their minor daughter, S.P. Pursuant to Rule 702, the Parneses seek to introduce the opinion testimony of Timothy Conway, Ph.D. in support of their theory that S.P. requires accommodations and the cost of those accommodations including private schooling.

    Neuropsychology Expert Witness

    Timothy Conway completed supervised pre-doctoral and post-doctoral training in the diagnosis and treatment of neurodevelopmental disorders in children and adults at The Morris Center [(TMC)]. Conway received his bachelor’s degree in psychology, and he holds a Ph.D. in clinical psychology with a concentration in neuropsychology. After completing his Ph.D., he completed a post-doctoral fellowship at the VAMC-Brain Rehabilitation Research Center of Excellence.

    Since 2008, Conway has owned or managed TMC clinics in Ocala, Florida; Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida; Birmingham, Alabama; Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies; and NOW!, an EdTech company. Also, since 2008, he has been training and directing teams of healthcare professionals (occupational therapy, speech-language therapy, clinical psychology/neuropsychology) and educators in the transdisciplinary assessment and treatment of neurodevelopmental disorders. And he has co-authored numerous publications and provided training courses and workshops to professionals.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    Conway wrote in his expert report that S.P. “needs high intensity, high frequency, evidence-based intervention for her specific learning disorders, AD/HD and her developmental coordination disorder.”

    Conway is Qualified to Provide Opinion Testimony

    The Board claimed that because Conway is not licensed in Florida or another state, he is unqualified to serve as an expert in psychology, school psychology, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, or K-12 educational needs. Here, the Board pointed to the lack of information in Conway’s expert report or curriculum vitae that he is a licensed psychologist, school psychologist, licensed occupational therapist, or licensed speech-language pathologist in Florida (or any other state). Also, the Board asserted that he is unqualified because he has never taught in a K-12 classroom in Florida and he is not a licensed educator in Florida. 

    Finally, the Board argued that Conway is unqualified because he “never personally treated, evaluated, or assessed S.P. in a clinical or school setting.”

    To the extent that the Board argued that Conway is unqualified because he is unlicensed in Florida, it has not stated how this renders Conway unqualified in this case. Moreover, the Board failed to explain its arguments that he is not licensed as a speech-language pathologist in any jurisdiction or as an educator in Florida. The Court held that argument goes to the weight that a trier of fact might give the testimony, but it does not preclude admissibility. 

    The Parneses submitted that Conway has evaluated S.P., reviewed her medical and school records (including those that the Board produced), and has spoken with S.P. and her parents on “numerous occasions regarding her education.” The Court held that his expert report was based on evaluation, information, and the status of [S.P.] at that time.

    Conway is Not Offering a Causation Opinion

    Since Conway’s report is limited to S.P.’s present treatment, education, and schooling needs, the Board argued that Conway’s “causation” opinions warranted exclusion. The Board submits that the “causation” opinions that Conway will offer are: (1) the alleged acts or omissions on the part of the Board, (2) the adequacy and appropriateness of any services and supports the Board provided S.P., and (3) whether the Board damaged or harmed S.P.

     The Parneses explained that Conway’s report does not opine as to “causation” because he is not going to offer a “causation” opinion. Thus, the Court excluded Conway’s opinions as to causation.

    Reliability of Conway’s Methodology

    The Board argued that Conway’s proposed opinions are not based on a reliable methodology and are simply ipse dixit that will not assist the jury.

    Conway’s opinions will help the jury to understand the parties’ positions

    First, the Court held that Conway’s opinions will help the jury to understand the parties’ positions and the remedies that the parties believe are appropriate or inappropriate. Conway’s opinions are not so speculative (or outside the bounds of what he does) that his opinions will fail to assist the jury. And while the Board argues that Conway’s lack of licensure means he will not assist the jury, as previously discussed “lack of board-certification [or a license] goes to weight, not admissibility.”

    Second, the records that Conway reviewed were produced to the Board and consisted of S.P.’s school records, medical records, and evaluations. Moreover, Conway interviewed S.P., her parents, and family members. Conway reviewed all of S.P.’s school records covering the past six to seven years and reviewed all evaluations of disabilities. The Court held that Conway’s opinions are based on sufficient facts and data.

    Third and fourth, the Court held that Conway’s proposed opinions as to the accommodations that S.P. requires to catch up with her peer group and to participate in public or private school are reliable. The Parneses stated that Conway used peer reviewed and accepted principles to evaluate S.P.’s school records and medical records. His opinion connects his experience and secondary sources to S.P.’s school and medical records such that it is the product of reliable principles and is based on reliable methodology.

    Conway’s opinions about the costs of private schooling and healthcare are unreliable

    When Conway submitted his estimates for healthcare costs, the Court found that he failed to provide any basis for them. Conway’s report does not set forth the cost of individual services. Likewise, there is no cost estimate for the online program (NOW!) that S.P. is enrolled in; it is not clear whether that program is included in the monthly figure or if it is a separate cost.

    Moreover, Conway did not submit that he has testified as an expert witness regarding medical coding or the reasonableness of medical billing. And he does not submit that his opinion on S.P.’s medical billing was the result of considering authoritative sources on the subject. Nor does he explain how he determined “typical” rates in the area, and there is no support for this determination other than Conway’s own report.

    Likewise, Conway’s opinion on the cost of private schooling is unreliable. As with Conway’s opinion on healthcare costs, he fails to provide “any explanation of the basis, facts, or data considered in reaching” his opinion as to S.P.’s continuing treatment and educational costs. And he does not cite to any other resource to support his opinions. As a result, his methodology is insufficiently reliable for him to offer an opinion on the continuing treatment and educational costs in this case. 

    Held

    The Court limited the testimony of expert Timothy Conway after excluding his opinions as to causation, healthcare costs, and schooling costs.

    Key Takeaway:

    Conway opined based on his experience “helping students with severe and many deficits,” his review of S.P.’s medical and school records, his evaluation of S.P., and speaking to the Parneses and family members. His company may charge certain rates, but there is insufficient information in his expert report to support his testimony as an expert regarding the costs of healthcare, educational services, or private school tuition in the community at large. Conway does not provide support for his calculation of the costs of S.P.’s potential treatment.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Parnes Et Al V. Orange County School Board
    Docket Number: 6:23cv854
    Court: United States District Court, Florida Middle
    Order Date: September 24, 2024

  • Accounting Expert Witness’ Testimony About the Deduction of Expenses and Other Lease Burdens Excluded

    Accounting Expert Witness’ Testimony About the Deduction of Expenses and Other Lease Burdens Excluded

    This case arises out of an oil and gas royalty dispute between Flat River Farms and MRC Energy Company. Plaintiffs produced a one-page expert report prepared by George E. McGovern III, CPA, a certified public accountant (“CPA”). Based on his expert report, McGovern was tasked with determining if Plaintiffs’ royalties as determined by the Lease were underpaid. The report contains the following conclusions:

    • MRC received consistently lower payments for well production than industry standards.
    • MRC was not charged for expenses related to gas preparation.
    • The operator’s payment method doesn’t adhere to GAAP standards.
    • The operator transferred production ownership to a third-party at below-market cost. A third-party marketer then prepared the product for sale.
    • The gas’s monetary value to MRC and royalty payments were discounted to cover expenses and lease burdens

    The Court addressed two motions relating to McGovern filed by Defendant MRC Energy Company (“MRC”). McGovern is Plaintiffs’ expert witness. The first motion is a Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of McGovern. More specifically, MRC seeks to exclude or limit at trial any opinion testimony from McGovern on the element of damages. MRC contends that McGovern’s expert testimony is not based on sufficient facts or data, his testimony is not the product of reliable principles or methods, and he has not reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of this case. MRC submits that his testimony would only serve to confuse the trier of fact.

    The second motion is a motion in limine to exclude McGovern’s expert testimony and report on the grounds that McGovern is unqualified to provide an expert opinion in this case and his testimony is not the product of reliable principles and methods.

    Accounting Expert Witness

    George E. McGovern III has been a Certified Public Accountant since 1972. He worked for international accounting firm Touche Ross (now Deloitte Touche) and was a full time accounting professor at Centenary College for eight years. He has qualified as an expert in oil and gas accounting, and testified as such in numerous cases across multiple jurisdictions.

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

    Discussion by the Court

    McGovern could not explain the basis of his conclusion

    During his deposition, McGovern was unable to explain his opinions in conjunction with actual evidence or analysis. He could not recall the prevailing industry rate for the respective time period and did not recollect the documents or information he had or that he used to establish the prevailing industry rate. He also could not explain the basis of his conclusion that MRC was paid at a price that was consistently lower than the prevailing and industry standard price for the respective time period.

    MRC contended that McGovern was unqualified to provide an expert opinion in the case

    To begin with, McGovern admitted that he had not prepared for the deposition. Based on the contents of the report and McGovern’s deposition testimony, MRC contended that McGovern was unqualified to provide an expert opinion in the case and that his report was not based on any reliable facts or data. MRC submitted that McGovern was unqualified to provide an opinion regarding the various methods of allocating and recouping expenses, and the various methods in which non-operating working interest owners were assessed costs, directly or indirectly, in the oil and gas production process. Besides, MRC maintained that McGovern’s trial testimony would not be the product of reliable principles and methods, and that he had not reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

    The Court agrees that portions of McGovern’s opinions are not sufficiently grounded in any actual evidence or analysis, thereby rendering them void of the necessary indicia of reliability. Without more reliable methodology and factual support for his analysis, McGovern’s opinion that the per unit monetary value of the gas received by MRC, and upon which it paid royalties to Plaintiffs, does not reflect the true price, but rather a discounted price to account for the deduction of expenses and other lease
    burdens is inadmissible and would not be helpful to the jury. Rule 702 requires this Court to exercise its role as a gatekeeper and exclude such unreliable expert opinion. McGovern can provide no testimony regarding money, numbers or claimed damages as it relates to the instant matter. Notwithstanding, he is qualified as a CPA to opine on generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) applicable to oil and gas royalty payments. Additionally, assuming the proper foundation is laid, McGovern may be able to opine generally on allocation of production and recouping expenses.

    Held

    In conclusion, the Court granted in part and denied in part MRC’s motions to exclude McGovern’s expert testimony.

    Key Takeaway:

    MRC contended that McGovern’s testimony is not based on sufficient facts or data and he is unqualified to provide an expert opinion in this case. The Court held that McGovern can provide no testimony regarding money, numbers or claimed damages as it relates to the instant matter. Notwithstanding, he is qualified as a CPA to opine on generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) applicable to oil and gas royalty payments.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Flat River Farms L L C Et Al V. M R C Energy Co
    Docket Number: 5:19cv1249
    Court: United States District Court, Louisiana Western
    Order Date: July 30, 2024