New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Experts —Exaggerated Credentials — New Trial

Download PDF

Experts gild their credentials in many ways. It is not always a blessing for the proponent of the witness. The defense won a jury verdict in In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40612 (E.D. La. May 29, 2007), after the first trial had resulted in a hung jury. On the way to the jury verdict, the well-credentialed defense medical expert couldn’t resist the following on direct:

Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Rayburn. Sir, you're a medical doctor; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. You're also a professor of medicine at the University of Alabama; is that also correct?

A. That's correct.

***

Q. Doctor, before we get to your opinions, let's review your background. What is your field of speciality [sic]?

A. Cardiologist.

Q. Are you board-certified, sir?

A. Yes. I passed boards in internal medicine and cardiovascular disease.

Six weeks later, in a different lawsuit (also Vioxx-related), the cross revealed that passing boards and being board-certified are not necessarily one and the same:

Q. Are you a board certified cardiologist?

A. No. My boards are currently being renewed, but that's not my certification.

Q. Your board certification was lost in cardiology years ago, true?

A. My board certification expired.

Q. That's what "lost" means. It is not valid anymore, true?

A. I think there was an implication that I lost it through something I did and it expired in 10 years.

Q. I'm not suggesting that you butchered somebody and lost it because you did something bad. I'm just saying it is gone. It ran out. You knew it was going to run out. It is only good for 10 years and it ran out, didn't it?

A. Yes, and I'm in the process now of renewing it.

Q. Years later?

A. Well, two years later.

Q. And your internal medicine board certification ran out over five years ago, right?

A. I think that's correct and I'm actually going to renew that, I'm in the process of renewing that, as well.

The expert's subsequent attempt to explain away his prior testimony fared about as well as you’d expect:

Q. ...Remember you testified six weeks ago to a jury in New Orleans?

A. Yes.

Q. You were sworn in as a witness?

A. Yes.

Q. And about a minute later, seven questions into the exam by a Merck lawyer they said, "Are you board certified, sir"? You answered, "Yes. I passed boards in internal medicine and cardiovascular disease." That wasn't true, was it?

A. Well, actually, I wouldn't put a period after the yes, I made it very clear I passed my boards internal medicine and cardiovascular disease, I did.

Q. But the question is: "Are you board certified, sir"? And you told a jury under oath, yes, and you are not board certified.

A. I absolutely in no way intended to misrepresent the currency of my certification, absolutely not.

Q. But you may not have intended it, but it was wrong, and you told a jury it was wrong.

A. No, sir, I did not intend to represent that I wasn't lapsed or expired at all.

Q. Are you board certified or not?

A. My boards have lapsed. I'm not currently board certified. I have been very clear about that.

Q. So you think that was clear to the jury in New Orleans?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Held, (1) the doctor ‛misrepresented his status as a board-certified cardiologist,“ and (2) the ‛misrepresentation prevented the Plaintiff from fully and fairly presenting her case to the jury.“ Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial granted.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO: (1) Victim vs. Perpetrator Enterprises — (2) § 1962(b): Elements of a Violation — (3) Meaning of “Interest” and “Control” in § 1962(b) — (4) The Defendant in a § 1962(b) Action Need Not Be an Enterprise; The Victim Must Be An Enterprise — (5) Acquisition/Maintenance Injury Required (6) Aiding and Abetting Liability under RICO

Rule 11 Sanctions: Request for Bill of Particulars re Sanctions Proceeding Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Court’s Discretion Narrows As Severity of Sanction Increases OR When It Initiates the Sanction Proceeding Itself — Particularly Strict Abuse of Discretion Standard Applied — “Rule 11 Does Not License a District Court to Sanction Any Action by an Attorney or Party That It Disapproves of” (Good Quote) — Failure to Provide Identify Specific Pleading and Detail Specific, Objectionable Conduct within that Pleading Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That Most Severe Sanction May Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That “Scarlett Letter Sanction” (Mandatory Circulation of Sanctions Order) Or Other Sanction That Could Leave Indelible Imprint on Career Might Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Notice That Law Firm Might Be Sanctioned Insufficient to Afford Notice to Firm Lawyer and Managing Partner That He Might Be Sanctioned — Refusal to Impose Additional Sanction Until Impact of Other Imposed Penalties (Not Sanctions) Ascertained to See Whether Sanction Needed

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: (1) Exclusion of Expert Testimony Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion Even When It Results in Summary Judgment — (2) Whether Physicians Must File 26(a)(2)(B) Report Depends on Whether They Formed Their Opinions for Litigation Or in the Course of Medical Treatment — (3) Party Seeking to Avoid Exclusion of Its Expert for Noncompliance with Rule 26 Bears Burden of Showing Harmlessness or Substantial Justification — (4) Expert Report Subject to Exclusion If It Is Conclusory and Does Not Meet the Level of Rigor Required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

RICO: The Statute Defines Enterprise Broadly, “But That Breadth Is Not Without Limit” (Good Quote) — Enterprise Inadequately Pled Where Plaintiffs Fail to Name the Common Purpose, Explain How the Relationships Among the Defendants Allowed Them to Advance That Purpose, Or Specify the Period of Time Sufficient to Achieve That Purpose — In a Particular Case, the Pattern of Racketeering May Be Sufficient to Infer the Existence of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise, But Pattern Does Not Necessarily Establish Enterprise — A RICO Conspiracy May Exist Regardless of Whether the Substantive RICO Violation Is Consummated, But the Substantive Violation Must Be Adequately Pled

RICO: (1) Claim Accrued When Plaintiff Suffered, and Was Aware of, Her Injury — Overt Retaliation in Her Employment As A Result of Reporting Another Employee’s Sexual Misconduct — Not When a Report Confirming that Misconduct Later Became Public; (2) Inhouse Lawyer’s Conclusion No Sexual Misconduct Occurred Is a Mere Expression of a Legal Conclusion, Not Deception Warranting SOL Reprieve Due to Equitable Tolling or Fraudulent Concealment — Plaintiff Exhibited Lack of Diligence in Failing to Consult Own Counsel or Challenge Inhouse Counsel’s Conclusion; (3) Causation: Plaintiff Must Prove Her Injuries Were Directly Caused by the Predicate Acts — (4) Concealment of Report Commissioned by Employer Directly Harmed Employer (by Exposing It to Liability) and Victims of Sexual Misconduct, and Only Indirectly Harmed Plaintiff Who Suffered Retaliation in Her Employment for Reporting the Misconduct

RICO: Without Injury to Business or Property, Injury Resulting from RICO Violation Is Not Actionable under RICO — Meaning of “Property” in § 1964(c) — Meaning of “Business” in § 1964(c) — Mere “Expectancy Interests” ≠ Business or Property — Loss of NCAA Eligibility = Loss of a Status, Not Loss of Property — Pecuniary Losses (Here, Attorney’s Fees) Flowing from a Non-Cognizable Injury Are Not Recoverably via RICO

RICO: Enterprise Not Sufficiently Distinct from Defendant Where Enterprise Allegedly Consisted of the Defendant Corporation, Corporate Employees, Their Counsel and “Friends”

FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Lightly Be Awarded on the Ground That an Incorrect Argument Was Frivolous — “An Appeal Can Be Weak, Indeed Almost Hopeless, Without Being Frivolous” (Good Quote) — There Must Be “No Legitimate Basis for Pursuing the Appeal” (Good Quote)

Severe Emotional Distress and Trauma ≠ RICO Injury — Parents’ Voluntary Financial Support of Adult Daughter Who Was Forced to Sign Over Her Annuity in Violation of RICO Not Proximately Caused by RICO Violation — Injury Is Derivative, Not Direct (Intimation of Different Result if Financial Support Required by Law) — RICO Injury Is Requirement for Statutory Standing (12(b)(6) Issue), Not Constitutional Standing (12(b)(1) Issue)

RICO — Neither Filing a Complaint Nor Issuing a Press Release Constitutes Wire Fraud — Litigation Privilege Is Absolute and Bars All Tort Claims Other Than Malicious Prosecution — Abuse of Process Claim Barred (California Law)

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice