SW Legal Educational Publishing

Juries Can Sort Out Conflicts in Expert Testimony
Description Court rejected a party's motion to strike the expert testimony of a physician whose conclusions conflicted with those of the other party's physician because the expert based his conclusions on a review of the records, not an examination in person. Experts often rely only on documents, not first hand review, and juries may sort out the conflicting testimony.
Topic Court Procedure
Key Words Evidence; Expert Testimony; Conflicting Opinions
C A S E   S U M M A R Y
Facts Mareno sued his employer, Madison Square Garden (MSG), for age discrimination. MSG hired Dr. Goldstein to provide expert testimony regarding geriatrics and depression. Mareno moved to have Goldstein's testimony barred as unreliable because Goldstein criticized the conclusions of Mareno's personal physician for not conducting a psychiatric examination of Mareno, yet Goldstein formed his opinions based on a review of records; he never examined Mareno.
Decision Motion denied. The testimony of Dr. Goldstein will be allowed. "Expert evidence is often based on training and experience rather than direct observation; that is what distinguishes it from lay testimony. If there is an inconsistency between Dr. Goldstein's opinion concerning proper practice and the procedure he himself followed, it is for the jury to evaluate.
Citation Mareno v. Madison Square Garden, L.P., 2000 WL 1401156 (S.D. N.Y., 2000)

Back to Court Procedure Listings

©1997-2002  SW Legal Studies in Business. All Rights Reserved.