Selecting Expert Witnesses


36-2-1092 Walker v. Torres, App. Div. (per curiam) (14 pp.) After a jury verdict of a no cause of action in this auto negligence case in which plaintiff settled with the tortfeasor and then proceeded against her under-insured motorist carrier, plaintiff appeals from two evidentiary rulings made by the trial judge, contending the judge erred by barring her expert, a dentist, from testifying as to his interpretation of her MRIs and from using certain internet videos as a demonstrative aid during his testimony. The appellate division confirmed the trial judge’s decision to preclude evidence.  The attorney had attempted to have a dentist read MRIs.  The dentist is not an expert of MRIs and does not read them in his ordinary dental practice!!!  YOU HAVE TO PICK THE RIGHT EXPERT TO DELIVER THE RIGHT EVIDENCE TO YOUR JURY!!  IF YOU DO NOT THE JURY WILL NEVER HEAR YOUR STORY AND NEVER RULE IN YOUR FAVOR; AS WAS THE CASE HERE!  THIS IS LEGAL MALPRACTICE!!!! GET THE RIGHT EXPERTS, PREPARE YOUR CASES CORRECTLY AND TELL YOUR STORY.  THAT IS WHAT WE DO AT HARK AND HARK!  LET THE JURY GET TO HEAR THE WHOLE STORY!

The court ruled the trial judge did not abuse his discretion with his determination that the dentist was unqualified to read and interpret MRIs since he had neither the experience nor the training to do so, and that the judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding the internet videos because they could not be authenticated and would be prejudicial. Moreover, because plaintiff has failed to articulate any convincing reason why the result of the trial would have been different if the judge had permitted the use of the videos, even if it was error to refuse to admit them, the error was harmless.

Posted in

Criminal Civil Lawyer

Jeffrey Hark is a New Jersey Civil and Criminal Lawyer.

Leave a Comment