Serving clients throughout Indiana and the United States
Essential Articles Download
Deposition and Cross Examination of the Defendant Truck Driver-ATLA 2006 The deposition of the defendant truck driver is often the most important tool of discovery available to the plaintiff’s lawyer. The reasons for taking the driver’s depositions should be well understood so that the attorney who is going to take this deposition is properly prepared.
Handling Daubert Challenges in Indiana The success or failure of many lawsuits depends on whether the opinion of the plaintiff’s expert witness is found to be admissible by the trial court. The admissibility of an expert’s opinion often determines whether or not the case proceeds to trial, and, whether or not there is a meaningful opportunity to successfully mediate the case before trial.
Indiana's Common Sense Approach to Daubert Trial lawyers throughout Indiana have carefully watched how the Indiana Supreme Court would respond to Daubert. Thankfully, for both the plaintiff and defense bar the Indiana Supreme Court has taken a common sense approach to the admissibility of expert testimony, and has recognized that Daubert was intended to liberalize the rules concerning the admissibility of expert testimony.
Expert Testimony & How to Daubert-Proof Your Experts The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Kumho Tire makes it clear that a Daubert-type scrutiny will be applied by Federal trial courts in ruling on the admissibility of all expert opinions. Writing for the Court Justice Breyer found that Rules 702 and 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence required that an expert’s testimony have “a standard of evidentiary reliability”, regardless of whether the expert characterizes his or her testimony as “scientific,” “technical,” or merely “specialized.”
Handling Non Catastrophic Brain Injury Cases “We’ve learned that the brain is more plastic than we once thought and that damage can come from its movement within the skull after a blow to the head or to another part of the body. We’ve learned not to be surprised when brain-damage symptoms are reported when no identifiable local bruising or fracturing can be found.”
Ayub Ommaya, Professor of Neurosurgery at George Washington University and Chief Medical Advisor to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, November 24, 1982.
How to Expose Unethical Medical Witnesses Medical doctors, psychologists, and psychiatrists are often called upon by the defendants in a brain injury case to conduct a “independent” medical examination (IME). These experts will then render expert opinions and will typically opine that the injured plaintiff’s symptoms are not causally related to a brain injury and/or that the patient’s symptoms are unrelated to the injury producing incident in question. The purpose of this article is to offer suggestions as to how to expose the bias and vested interests many of these experts have in providing IME examinations and testimony.
The Use of Medical Literature in the Brain Injury Case Representing a person who has suffered a “mild “ traumatic brain injury, MTBI, can be very difficult. The injury is akin to a cervical extension/cervical flexion injury in that often diagnostic tests are negative and the injured person appears to be injury free. Because of the invisible nature of a MTBI, insurance adjustors, defense attorneys and even the medical profession will often be cynical about the claims that an injured person is making and will perpetuate myths that have been use for years in defending against the MTBI claim.
Understanding the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations It is common for trucking companies and the drivers they employ to routinely ignore or blatantly violate the safety provisions of the Federal Motor Carrier Saftey Regulations (FMCSR). When that occurs and a member of the general public is maimed or killed as a result, only a skillful Plaintiff’s counsel well versed in the FMCSR can ensure that justice will prevail.
Voir Dire in Brain Injury Cases The voir dire of prospective jurors in a traumatic brain injury case is an opportunity to discuss with prospective jurors their attitudes and biases about what it means to have a brain that is not functioning normally. It is beyond the scope of this paper to conduct an exhaustive review of voir dire in general. The focus in this paper will be on how to voir dire a prospective jury about the themes and issues common to the majority of cases involving traumatic brain injury.