Preclusion of bio-mechanical opinion
October 23, 2017 No Comments
Dovberg v Laubach, 2017 NY Slip Op 07238 (2d Dept. 2017) (1) “Prior to the commencement of a trial on the issue of damages, the defendants served
Dovberg v Laubach, 2017 NY Slip Op 07238 (2d Dept. 2017) (1) “Prior to the commencement of a trial on the issue of damages, the defendants served
Kohler v Barker, 2017 NY Slip Op 01344 (2d Dept. 2017) “The admissibility and scope of expert testimony is a determination within the discretion of the trial
Sepulveda v Dayal, 2016 NY Slip Op 06949 (2016) (1) To paraphrase, there were many experts who offered differing testimony “whether the infant plaintiff’s neuroblastoma could have been
Rowe v Fisher, 2011 NY Slip Op 01721 (1st Dept. 2011) “The motion court properly precluded plaintiffs’ expert testimony on chelation because the expert’s theories were
Once a month, the Fourth Department usually barrages us with about 100 or so decisions. The hard part is sifting through them quickly enough and finding
Ellis v Eng, 2010 NY Slip Op 01453 (2d Dept. 2010) This medical malpractice case, I think, is a must read for many reasons. First, it
In federal practice and in the practice of most states that have codified their rules of evidence, the answer to this question is a resounding yes.
