Sentences with phrase «expert on causation»

At Oxford University, Tony Honoré made his name as an expert on causation and moral responsibility in the law.

Not exact matches

In this video, Dr. Margaret Heritage, a nationally known expert on data use, describes how to use state assessment data as a launching point to determine what other data should be explored to understand causation.

So, you've got two conflicting points here: one is that two - way bike lanes are correlated with stronger bicycling growth than any other type of protected bike lane in this NITC report (more research needs to be done to confirm causation, not simply correlation), and second is that on - street two - way bike lanes are considerably less safe than on - street one - way bike lanes according to numerous bicycle planning experts and authorities.

The plaintiff's first lawyer disclosed four controlled expert witnesses (Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213 (f)(3)-RRB- to testify on causation.

These reports consist of expert witnesses offering their professional opinions on a variety of issues, including causation, severity of injuries, diagnosis, and permanence of injuries.

The federal district court judge granted the motion, ruling that a toxic - tort claim depends on expert proof of causation and that the Cripes had not produced any expert evidence.

Do Not Let Defendants Exclude Your Medical Experts» Opinions on Causation, Consumer Attorneys of California's Forum Magazine, September 2004

The plaintiff's expert's evidence was criticized because: 1) he didn't review the entire file, just what the plaintiff provided to him; 2) his opinion was formed with the benefit of hindsight; 3) he gave evidence as to causation of the plaintiff's loss, based on what the motions judge might have done had H proceeded differently, which is impermissible.

In order to make informed, intelligent, fair and reasonable decisions about causation and liability it is often necessary to rely on the scientific expertise of a qualified accident reconstruction expert.

The article covers how a judge in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut excluded the plaintiff's medical causation expert on Daubert grounds after finding insufficient evidence of the plaintiff's exposure to the drug, which was necessary to support the expert's opinion on specific causation.

First, while experts were not able to testify as to causation on a standard of scientific precision, there was some evidence that the negligent operation had led to the injury.

Dr. Farine, a defence expert tried to base his expert opinion on causation on some of the expert findings from the first trial.

See, for example, Ediger v. Johnston, 2011 BCCA 253 at para. 84: «where both parties have led expert evidence on the issues of causation, it is not open to this court to apply the «common sense» reasoning urged in Snell».

Obtained plaintiff's expert's admission he had no reliable scientific evidence of causation; won dismissal on eve of trial

We will work with local, national, and even international experts on this topic in order to illustrate a driver's liability in these cases and draw a definitive line of causation between the driver's actions and our clients» injuries.

The claims involve complex legal procedures, intricate demonstrations of causation, a wealth of information from medical experts, and an unimpeachable understanding of Virginia laws on the matter.

Upon learning that Freeman intended to disclose an additional or new medical expert witness to offer opinions on the issue of causation, Dr. Crays» lawyers moved to adopt the rulings from the earlier case and bar any testimony of plaintiff's newly disclosed expert opinion pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219 (e).

The defendants argued that under New Mexico law, an expert witness is always required to show causation of an injury, and since the plaintiff has not designated an expert witness on that issue, that the plaintiff can not obtain relief.

We routinely take on Daubert and Frye expert challenges and summary judgments on medical causation.

To make a ruling on the case, the U.S. Federal Court needed to apply New Mexico state law regarding the necessity of an expert witness to show the causation of an injury.

If the treating physician has an expert report submitted on their behalf, the treating physician may testify as a retained expert about matters that go beyond treatment and diagnosis, such as opinions related to causation.

D. New Mexico, 2014 (Docket No. 11 - CV -784-BRB / RHS), a New Mexico federal court granted the defendants» motions for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff's failure to designate an expert witness on the issue of medical causation before an April 17, 2013 deadline required that the case be thrown out.

Thus, while the application of the wrong test for causation was an error of law, the error stemmed from the trial judge's failure to appreciate that the expert witnesses were unable to state that causation was established on a balance of probabilities.

The Court decided the trial judge had carefully weighed the evidence as a whole, including the statistical evidence, the evidence specific to the Plaintiff, and the three expert opinions, all of which involved some speculation and held that she made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish causation on a balance of probabilities:

This is because the law requires proof of causation only on a balance of probabilities, whereas scientific or medical experts often require a higher degree of certainty before drawing conclusions on causation (p. 330).

While the Chapman case was on appeal, the remaining plaintiffs in MDL 2051 were granted an opportunity to proffer new experts and any new science in support of their causation theory.

That line held that the Snell common sense approach can't be used where expert evidence is adduced on the factual causation issue.

There are BCCA decisions which suggest that where the parties have lead expert evidence on the issue of factual causation — certainly where both sides do, perhaps even where just one side «leads» the evidence, the robust and pragmatic approach can not be used.

However, it could also be said that the plaintiff led expert evidence, too, because the plaintiff «s lawyer cross-examined the expert and got answers which plaintiff's counsel went on to claim supported the plaintiff's theory of causation.

So, maybe, this is one case that the SCC will grant leave, if only to ignore the causation principles generally and deal with the BC authorities about the effect of some (plaintiff - supporting) expert evidence on the use of the so - called common sense inference.

Also served on the client's national expert witness team deposing medical causation experts throughout the country.

When the cause of the injury is not one, which is apparent to a layperson, and multiple factors may have contributed to causation, expert evidence on the subject is required.