Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Matrimonial StrategistFeaturesFamily LawLitigationLJN Newsletters

Expert Witnesses: Observing the Limits of Expertise

By David A. Martindale
March 01, 2017

In 2013, Timothy M. Tippins, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, opined, in a New York Law Journal column, that there was an “urgent need for the legal system to impose mandatory and enforceable standards of performance upon those mental health professionals who offer potentially life-altering opinions in the custody court” (The Bar Won't Raise Itself: The Case for Evaluation Standards, July 8, 2013). A year later, writing again for the same ALM publication, Tippins opined that “[a]ll involved must be accountable, and accountability requires standards of performance” (Custody Evaluations: The Quest for Quality, July 3, 2014). Though these articles addressed the work of custody evaluators, life-altering opinions are also being offered by file reviewers (work product reviewers), some of whom seem to be oblivious to, or unconcerned about, the inherent limitations of a file reviewer's data.

In the relatively short period of time between 1993 and 1999, The Supreme Court of the United States addressed the issue of expert testimony in three cases. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the proffered (and rejected) expert opinion was that Bendectin, prescribed for the management of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, was teratogenic. In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), alleged workplace exposure to carcinogens was at issue, and, here too, proffered expert testimony was ruled inadmissible. Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), was a product liability case, and the product analysis conducted by the plaintiff's expert was deemed to be unreliable.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.