Sentences with phrase «proffer opinion evidence»

There is lots of discourse floating around about the gatekeeping responsibilities of triers of fact and the need to ensure that only properly qualified experts are permitted to proffer opinion evidence.

If participant experts or non-party experts proffer opinion evidence extending beyond these limits, they must comply with rule 53.03 for that portion of their evidence, Simmons said.

However, if a participant expert proffers opinion evidence extending beyond those limits, he or she must comply with r. 53.03 with respect to the portion of the opinion extending beyond those limits.

For example, I'd of thought it would be painfully obvious that a psychological «expert» proffering opinion evidence in a chronic pain case who concedes under cross-examination to «a lack of training and competency in the area of chronic pain» ought to be confronted with his concession (chronicled in the form of adverse judicial comment) his next time out (only weeks later in another chronic pain case).

Not exact matches

In so doing they throw the dice and gamble the expert won't proffer highly biased (pro-insurer) opinion evidence just as as she / he was found to have done by previous judges in previous cases.

If this is a criterion for understanding «basic procedures» — that might explain why the ligation landscape is littered with so many cases in which unqualified experts were able to proffer unchallenged, unqualified «expert» opinion evidence.

So I ask — how is it possible that a psychologist — unqualified to proffer expert opinion evidence in brain injury cases — was able to do so over and over and over for several years without challenge to his qualifications?

Of course the next obvious question is why didn't the plaintiff lawyers call the regulatory College (CPO) to confirm that this «opposing expert» was in fact properly qualified to proffer neuropsychological opinion evidence for the defence in brain injury cases?

However, where disclosure problems do exist, including the disclosure of the proffered opinion of a participant expert only on the eve of trial, the trial judge has the discretion to exclude the last - minute opinion evidence.