Articles Posted in Experts

by

All evidence is required to meet the foundation requirement of admissibility, which would include relevancy, the best evidence rule and hearsay. Under the law, the courts require authentication because before a tangible object or writing can be admitted into evidence, it must be shown that it is in fact what it claims to be. Thus evidence that is not authenticated is not relevant and must be excluded from consideration by the court.

Digital evidence has the same requirements as all other evidence in terms of authentication and foundation before it could be admitted into evidence. Digital evidence is also known sometimes as electronically stored information (ESI). That phrase was made a part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2006. The leading case on the application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and adopted by Illinois came to be in the 2007 Maryland case of Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D. Md. 2007). In that case, magistrate Judge Paul Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland noted that the failure to authenticate ESI “almost always is self-inflicted injury which can be avoided by thoughtful advanced preparation.”

One of the principal problems with digital evidence is that it can be manipulated, changed, fabricated by hackers and other sophisticated software users. It is also difficult to show to the court who was responsible for creating the digital evidence, whether it was on a keyboard on a computer or by cell phone or iPad. In some mobile apps, text messages seem to come from a particular person’s telephone, when in fact they did not. But evidence authentication does not require certainty. People v. Anderson, No. 311448, 2014 W.L.1383399 at 4 n. 3 (Mich. Ct. App. April 8, 2014); State v. Mays, 729 A.2d 1074, 1079 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999). In these cases dealing with authenticity, the parties hired experts to testify about who was the sender or recipient of certain digital evidence.

Continue reading

by

Shannon Brown sued the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. Section 51, et seq. Brown started as a laborer and worked his way to foreman, track inspector and machine operator by 2009.

In 2007, he was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in both wrists and cubital tunnel syndrome of the left elbow. In October 2007, Brown suffered a right shoulder injury but was pain-free in December 2007. In 2007 and 2008, Brown had carpal tunnel surgery to both of his wrists. In 2009, he underwent surgery on his left elbow. In January 2010, Brown returned to work without any medical restrictions. In September 2011, he left his employment at the railroad.

Brown filed a lawsuit in 2009 claiming that the cumulative trauma caused his wrists, elbow and shoulder injuries. During discovery, Brown hired Dr. David Fletcher to serve as his expert witness to give his medical opinion that the railroad caused his injuries. Dr. Fletcher graduated from Rush Medical College in Chicago, obtained a master’s degree in public health and was a fellow in the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. He was also an assistant professor at the University of Illinois and one of two doctors serving on the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission.

Continue reading

by

On Nov. 25, 2008, Thomas J. Hagerman was driving westbound on Route 6 in Morris, Ill., when the defendant, Betty Leake, who was attempting to make a left turn onto Lisbon Street, chose not to yield the right-of-way. Instead, Leake turned directly in front of Hagerman’s truck, causing Hagerman to T-bone her vehicle.

Hagerman was 43 years old at the time and suffered injuries to his cervical and thoracic spine, which resulted in a three-level cervical discectomy and fusion surgeries. He lost one year of work as a security guard and warehouse worker.

Hagerman was able to return to his job, but later underwent two bilateral knee replacements unrelated to the crash. He has not been able to work since the knee replacement surgeries.

Continue reading

by

In a case that has been labeled one of first impression, the wife of a victim of mesothelioma has prevailed after the defendant, Tennessee Valley Authority, moved to dismiss the case. The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Barbara Bobo brought this lawsuit against nine defendants, eight of whom were dismissed pursuant to stipulation for dismissal leaving only her claim against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The plaintiffs were the co-personal representatives of the estate of Barbara Bobo who maintained a variety of claims against the TVA based on her contraction of pleural mesothelioma from washing her husband’s work clothes. It was alleged that the work clothes contained asbestos dust originating from his job duties at TVA’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Power General Facility in Limestone County, Ala.

In this case, the principle issue was the causation of her contraction of mesothelioma. Before the court was a motion to exclude specific causation opinions of doctors. The motion to exclude the specific causation opinion was found to be moot and the motion to exclude specific causation opinion of another doctor was denied.

Continue reading

by

Several dietary supplements are being tested again in the United States and the Netherlands because of a new synthetic stimulant widely used in these products. The stimulant has been untested on humans. Federal regulators have taken no action, although the government has been urged by scientists to look closer.

The chemical DMAA, a stimulant as labeled by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is illegal when mixed with dietary supplements or any other product consumed by humans. DMAA is an ingredient that carries the risks of heart attacks, seizures and neurological problems. That compound is also listed on labels as AMP Citrate. AMP Citrate is a close relative of the compound DMAA.

Pieter Cohen, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and a co-author of an article of the scientific journal Drug Testing and Analysis, stated, “We want the FDA and we want the stores to immediately remove these products from the store shelves,” referring to products sold to the public containing DMAA. According to the research published, 14 products were tested that listed AMP Citrate, 4-amino, 2-methylpentane citrate or some of the other chemical names used to describe the new stimulant. According to Cohen, these are marketing names.

Continue reading

by

A nationally recognized art critic and historian, Gerald J. Nordlund, visited the Art Institute of Chicago at 111 S. Michigan Avenue on Sept. 5, 2009. He was 82 at the time. After leaving the Art Institute, Nordland stepped onto a retaining wall, which separated the sidewalk along Columbus Drive from a driveway serving the Modern Wing at the east side of the museum.

Nordland alleged that the height differential between the top of the retaining wall and the adjoining sidewalk caused him to fall as he attempted to step back down to the sidewalk. He struck his head and suffered facial injuries and a subdural hematoma and permanent sight loss.

The defendant, Interactive Design Inc., argued that the design of the retaining wall met the architectural standard of care and that Nordland’s contributory negligence was the proximate cause of his fall. The defense at trial also denied that his vision loss was related to this occurrence.

Continue reading

by

Khalil Bell and his mother, Kimberly Street, lived in a Chicago area apartment. On March 10, 2008, the heat in their apartment was off. To warm the apartment, she turned on the stove and put pots of water on the burners to create steam. After the water had reached the boiling point, she took the pots off the stove.

According to her deposition testimony, one burner was left on and uncovered when she went to take a shower. While Street was showering, her son Khalil, who was living with her, walked into the kitchen. When he did so, his shirt caught on fire burning him severely. On behalf of Khalil Bell, a minor, Street filed a lawsuit against the landlady and building manager, Helen Bakus and Nimo Rasho.

The lawsuit alleged that the building owner, Bakus, and the building manager, Rasho, had been notified about the unsafe placement of the stove in the apartment and about the lack of heat in the apartment. Street testified at her deposition that neither of the problems were remedied.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County jury has entered a $231,674 verdict for Patrick Somenzi, who was a patron at the bar known as the Dirty Sock. The bar is located at 9300 S. Roberts Road in Hickory Hills, Ill. On Dec. 11, 2012, Somenzi was a patron at the bar, which was offering an “all you can drink” special during a Bears game telecast.

He was injured when some of the bar’s unruly patrons who had been ejected earlier re-entered the bar and attacked Somenzi and his friends.

Somenzi, who was 23 at the time, was a warehouse worker and sustained torn ligaments in his left ankle that required surgery to repair because of the attack.

Continue reading

by

Brooke Melton, 29, died allegedly because of the General Motors’ ignition switch flaw. Her case had been pending for a period of time when it was settled by General Motors in October 2013. The settlement was reached before General Motors was found to have been downplaying and otherwise concealing the ignition switch problems from consumers and lawyers involved in these tragic cases.

Although the Melton case was settled, the Melton family lawyers want to reopen the case and show that General Motors was guilty of fraudulent concealment regarding the switch problem. If the Meltons are successful in reopening this case, other settled injury or death cases arising from the ignition switch defect may be reopened for further consideration.

Today the lawsuits or claims management of the many ignition switch injury cases are being handled by attorney Kenneth Feinberg, whose group has settled hundreds of the GM death and injury claims from crashes that were caused by the ignition switch defect.

Continue reading

by

On Aug. 7, 2008, Frosini Xeniotis was evaluated by an oral surgeon, Dr. Cynthia Satko. One of Xeniotis’s baby teeth had never fallen out, and her adult tooth had grown in behind it. The result was just simply “not aesthetically pleasing” to Xeniotis.

Xeniotis was referred to Dr. Satko by her primary dentist. To improve the condition, an oral surgeon would have to remove both the baby tooth and the adult tooth and fill the remaining space. Dr. Satko recommended an implant during this initial consultation.

The procedure described by Dr. Satko involved surgically inserting a titanium screw into the bone and then attaching an artificial tooth to the screw. Under the best of circumstances, this procedure would have been followed by a dental crown. Xeniotis agreed with the plan, and the next day Dr. Satko removed the two teeth and inserted the implant. Over the following year and half, the artificial tooth failed to fully afix into Xeniotis’s jaw.

Continue reading