Expert Witness RulesCategory RSS Feed
"Independent" medical exams are commonplace in personal litigation, workers compensation, and disability insurance contexts. Experience has made us cynical so that we now refer to these as "defense medical exams" or "insurance medical exams."
The New York Times on 3/31/09 carried an investigative article, "Exams of Injured Workers Feed Mutual Mistrust," detailing abuses of such exams in the … Continue Reading
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals was a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1993 that led to a sea change in standards for admitting expert testimony into evidence. Setting out a set of factors to be considered by courts in such decisions, it spread from questions of cutting edge science to the most mundane forms of … Continue Reading
It comes as no surprise that the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected constitutional challenges to the Daubert rule on expert testimony in the newly released decision of Mason v. Home Depot. The text of the decision is copied below. I apologize for formatting errors that may appear.
It appears that Georgia attorneys representing injured people may … Continue Reading
Last month there was a news story about the New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising, a panel appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruling that attorney advertisements that tout listings such as the "Super Lawyers" listings violate professional responsibility rules against ads that compare lawyers’ services or create an "unjustified expectation about results." … Continue Reading
When the Georgia General Assembly passed Senate Bill 3 — the "tort reform" conglomeration — in February 2005, most of the legislators hadn’t even read the entire bill, most of its provisions were not discussed in any detail, and hardly anyone understood it. To say it had a lot of poor draftsmanship is an understatement. … Continue Reading
NY court warns against too strict an application of Daubert test can result in prematurely choking off valid claims.
Many Daubert motions to exclude opinions of treating physicians are without merit.
Judge Ashley Royal in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia has made a common sense decision in response to one of those frivolous Daubert motions to exclude testimony of treating physicians. In Flowers v. Wal-Mart, 2005 WL 2787101, decided 10/27/05, Judge Royal held:
It is significant in this case that Dr. Dicks … Continue Reading
Psychological records from therapy sessions prepared in the course of treatment are still privileged. See Supreme Court opinion below.
Admissibility of expert testimony in both federal and state courts in Georgia is now governed by the Daubert standards. See Federal Rule of Evidence 702; O.C.G.A § 24-9-67.1 (effective 2/16/05); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, … Continue Reading