Do You Need an Expert to Sue an Expert?
This article by Bob Ambrogi, of IMS Expert Services, rhetorically asks the question of whether an 'expert' is required in order to sue another 'expert' because of his sworn testimony. In this particular case an expert was hired to help prove claims of wrongdoing by a neighboring industrial complex. Being declared qualified as an 'expert' varies from state to state, but it usually requires extensive documented professional experience, and/or an advanced college degree, and/or professional registration as a result of special testing. I, for example, would likely not qualify to serve as an expert witness in a trial. I am, however, the world's foremost expert on my own opinion of things. Like it or not - and many people believe it to be a form of acceptable payola - expert testimony is a major component of liability and performance of duties type litigation. This is a quick read, and you might be surprised at the conclusion. The take-away lesson is two-fold: Give careful consideration regarding whether you want to be paid as an expert witness, and don't necessarily be intimidated by another party's expert even if you yourself are not a qualified expert. It usually boils down to who has the best lawyers and what judge you appear before.
Note: IMS ExpertServices periodically sends me e-mails that highlight recent key court cases that can significantly affect the effectiveness of expert testimony, both for the plaintiff and for the defendant. I have no official affiliation with them other than to gratefully accept an invitation to repost articles I consider beneficial to RF Cafe visitors.
Posted by Robert Ambrogi on April 04, 2014
--- Add comments
Editor’s Note: The expert referenced in this article is not affiliated with IMS ExpertServices.
If you sue an expert witness for malpractice, do you need expert testimony to prove your case?
The question may sound circular, but it was one of first impression when it was decided earlier this month by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The court's answer, while definitive, was also narrow.
The plaintiffs in this case, Jackie and Gene Ellison, had hired the expert, Michael Campbell, to provide testimony in an earlier case they had filed against an oilfield waste disposal facility. In that earlier case, filed in 1999, they alleged that the facility was responsible for polluting the groundwater on their property and that the polluted water was responsible for the death of their cattle.
Campbell, a hydrogeologist, was hired to conduct tests and drill monitoring wells in order to establish empirical data sufficient for him to render a scientifically supportable expert opinion. After collecting samples over a period of several years, he prepared his expert report, which was submitted to the defendants.
A Deposition Gone Bad
In 2006, in a deposition that lasted three days, the defendants' lawyers grilled Campbell about his findings. According to the court's description of what occurred in that deposition, Campbell repeatedly made statements that discredited his own report.
At one point, for example, Campbell admitted that he did not know whether he had followed certain protocols in sample testing. At another, he pointed out significant calculation errors in his report. When defendants' counsel asked him if he thoroughly researched industry knowledge in regard to mud pits and their relationship to leakage and pollution, he responded that it was "difficult to say" and that "serendipity has a lot to do with finding articles when you need them," according to the court's opinion.
At the end of the first day of depositions, defendants' counsel asked Campbell to verify some of his calculations and check errors in his report. The next morning, when asked about these items, Campbell answered that he had been too tired to go over his report, saying he was "a busy person." According to the court's opinion, he then stated that the only way he could be certain that all the charts in his materials were not "riddled with errors" would be to go back and look at them.
At another point, when he was asked if the monitoring wells complied with state and federal environmental standards, he said he did not know because he had not read them. He further stated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would not accept his data as reliable.
The Expert is Sued
After settling that earlier litigation, the Ellisons sued Campbell, alleging negligence, tortious breach of contract, and breach of contract for his failure to provide them with a scientifically supportable report. After a four-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for the Ellisons of $409,000.
Campbell filed a motion to set aside the verdict, arguing that the Ellisons failed to establish their claim for breach of contract because they never presented an expert in hydrogeology to counter his scientific conclusions. The trial court denied the motion.
Campbell appealed to an intermediate appeals court, which sided with him and reversed the trial court. The appeals court held that the Ellisons should have been required to produce expert testimony to support their claim. The Ellisons appealed that decision to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Substandard Performance was Clear
Normally, the Supreme Court said in its opinion, expert testimony is required to establish a claim of professional negligence. But an expert is not required to establish an element that "lies within the common knowledge of lay persons."
In this case, Campbell's own statements "were sufficient to demonstrate his substandard performance in preparing expert materials," the court reasoned.
"Under these unique facts, it was unnecessary for the Ellisons to present an expert witness," the court held. "The average, lay person could most certainly conclude that Campbell had not performed the preparations necessary to produce a viable product for the purpose of demonstrating the existence and source of groundwater pollution in the [prior] proceedings."
The court was careful to explain that its holding was not intended to open a door to suing experts whenever a case is lost. "This opinion should not be read for the proposition that a losing party may recover monies paid to an expert witness for the formulation and presentation of an opinion in the context of litigation merely because the party requesting such opinion did not prevail or recover to the extent anticipated."
Rather, its ruling was based on the unique circumstances of this case, the court said, where Campbell held himself out as an expert capable of preparing a scientifically supportable report and contracted with the Ellisons to do just that.
"Instead, he produced a report which was admittedly error-riddled and based upon methodologies not meeting either state or federal regulations," the court said. "Simply, Campbell did not perform the services for which the Ellisons contracted and paid."
The case is Ellison v. Campbell, 2014 OK 15 (3/11/2014).
This article was originally published in BullsEye, a newsletter distributed by IMS ExpertServices™. IMS Expert Services is the premier expert witness search firm in the legal industry, focused exclusively on providing custom expert witness searches to attorneys. To read this and other legal industry BullsEye publications, please visit IMS Expert Services' recent articles. For your next expert witness search, call us at 877-838-8464 or visit our website.
Related Pages on RF Cafe
- Inventor Testimony in Patent Litigation
- Regression Analysis in Litigation
- Expert Testimony Central to Coffee Class Decision
- 10th Circuit Posits 'Unifying Theory' for Daubert Gatekeeping
- Do You Need an Expert to Sue an Expert?
- What the #!$% Is Bitcoin?
- Dilbert Versus Daubert - Which Standard Controls in Patent Design Cases?
- Lack of Expert Leads to Reversal of Patent Case
- Excluding Expert Testimony the Jury Already Heard
- 7th Circuit Excoriates Lawyers, Judges for 'Fear of Science'
- Federal Circuit Ponders Abandoning De Novo Review
- Apple, Samsung Daubert Docs Should Have Been Sealed, Federal Circuit Rules
- When an Expert's Testimony Counters His Own Report
- Fortune Telling & Reliability? An Expert Testimony Enigma
- Can Expert Statements Inadvertently Waive Protection?
- E- Discovery: 10 Strategic Steps for Defensible Search
- The 'Almighty' Federal Circuit? Evolving Patent Policy & Jurisprudence
- A Scientific Weapon for the Courtroom?
- Experts Face Fewer Challenges in Court, Survey Says
- Death of the ITC?
- No Appeal for Expert Witness 'Third Wheel'
- Patent Trolls on Trial?
- To Testify or Not to Testify: Re-Designating An Expert Witness?
- The Future of Predictive Coding (Part II) – Caveats Revealed
- The Future of Predictive Coding - Rise of the Evidentiary Expert?
- Think Before You Click - Facebook’s "Like" Button
- A Siri-ous Affair?
- Denial of Cert in "Junk Science" Case Leaves Lawyers Reeling
- A Peek "Under the Hood" of America Invents
- 10 Predictions for Litigation in 2012
- Attorneys Turn to iPads to Prepare and Question Experts
- Two Mistakes That Can Produce Tragedy in Patent Litigation
- Opposing Experts & Summary Judgment
- Could IBM’s Watson Make Experts Obsolete?
- An Expert's Change of Mind Can Be Shattering
- Why Do They Call Us Expert Witnesses? Part II
- Why Do They Call Us Expert Witnesses? Part I
- Bilski's Lesson: Avoid Abstraction
- Expert Secrecy: An Ethics Dilemma?
- New Federal Rule on Experts Takes Effect Dec. 1, 2010
Posted April 18, 2014
More than 10,000 searchable pages indexed.