Philadelphia and New York City prosecutors say Richard Gottfried (who is not the New York state assemblyman of the same name) wrongfully obtained hundreds of thousands in court-appointed work as a sentencing expert for indigent criminal defendants, in the process collecting money for work never performed. Gottfried, who allegedly invented degrees for himself, knows a bit about sentencing from the other side: he’s an ex-convict whom authorities say had been involved earlier in mail fraud and a real estate scam. (AP/Washington Post; Bronx D.A. Robert Johnson release, Jul. 8; Philadelphia DA Lynne Abraham case listing, Mar. 13, 2006).
Posts Tagged ‘expert witnesses’
Flax v. DaimlerChrysler seat back appeal
A very belated update to our earlier posts of 2004 and 2005. As we stated in November 2004:
In 2001, Louis Stockell, driving his pickup at 70 mph, twice the speed limit, rear-ended a Chrysler minivan. Physics being what they are, the front passenger seat in the van collapsed backwards and the passenger’s head struck and fatally injured 8-month old Joshua Flax. The rest of the family walked away from the horrific accident. Plaintiffs’ attorney Jim Butler argued that Chrysler, which already designed its seats above federal standards, should be punished for not making the seats stronger — never mind that a stronger and stiffer seat would result in more injuries from other kinds of crashes because it wouldn’t absorb any energy from the crash. (Rear-end collisions are responsible for only 3% of auto fatalities.) Apparently car companies are expected to anticipate which type of crash a particular vehicle will encounter, and design accordingly. The $105M verdict includes $98M in punitives.
We had more details of trial shenanigans in December 2004 and noted the reduction of the punitives by the trial court to a still unreasonable $20 million in June 2005. And now the rest of the story:
Mississippi forensics: corner-cutting coroners?
Mississippi medical examiner Dr. Steven Hayne, under fire relating to his forensic contributions to the state’s criminal justice system, has “also done plenty of damage to the state’s tort system, particularly in the area of medical malpractice. … ‘Lots of money can exchange hands over a cause of death determination,’ [Clarksdale cardiologist Dr. Roger] Weiner told me. ‘I wanted to make sure it exchanged hands for the right reasons. Everyone down here knows about Dr. Hayne. Tens of millions of health insurance dollars have gone to plaintiff’s lawyers down here because of him.'” Incendiary headline on the post: “In Mississippi, the Cause of Death Is Open to the Highest Bidder”. (Radley Balko, Reason “Hit and Run”, Jun. 5) (via Glenn Reynolds).
We were counting on you for favorable testimony, cont’d
Robert Ambrogi has more discussion on that case from Utah (Apr. 8 ) in which a litigant is suing an expert witness who changed his mind on the eve of trial about his willingness to support a medical malpractice suit, resulting in an adverse outcome. He mentions this site and quotes Ted, who
believes that [dissenting Tenth Circuit Judge Neil] Gorsuch is correct in his analysis. “The incentives of expert witnesses to give independent truthful opinions are already distorted, and should not be distorted further.”
Beyond that, the court appears not to have thought through the consequences of its decision, he says. “Every cross-examination of an expert at deposition should now include questions relating to the expert’s fear of being sued.”
(Bullseye newsletter, May; sidebar on state-by-state immunities for experts).
Seidel subpoena aftermath
As a judge considers whether to impose sanctions on attorney Clifford Shoemaker for hitting investigative blogger Kathleen Seidel with an intimidating subpoena, one of Shoemaker’s attorneys asks the court for more time “to gather the material I would need to show the Court the justification for the Subpoena and its scope,” which prompts Eric Turkewitz to wonder (May 6): “Why is it necessary to look for justification for the subpoena after it was issued?” And: “Other than talking to Shoemaker, who must have already had justification before the subpoena was issued, why would it be necessary to interview any other witness? It’s only Shoemaker’s rationale that matters to the sanctions motion.”
In another indication that heavy-handed pursuit of a blogger might not have worked out very well as a legal strategy, Shoemaker’s own clients, the Sykes family, have now voluntarily dropped their vaccine-autism suit against Bayer, which was the basis for the subpoena (Seidel, Orac).
Perhaps-ominous sequel: Seidel points out in a new post that Shoemaker’s legal papers accuse her of arguably tortious conduct in her comments on autism litigation, including interfering with “witnesses’ professions, professional relationships, and economic opportunities”, and that the witnesses in question in the Sykes suit, Dr. Mark Geier and David Geier, have previously pursued long and costly litigation against four scientists and the American Academy of Pediatrics over an article in Pediatrics which disputed the Geiers’ findings. The suit — which was eventually dismissed without prejudice as to the scientists, and dismissed with prejudice as to AAP — contended that damages were owing because the article in question had cut into the Geiers’ potential income as expert witnesses.
We were counting on you for favorable testimony!
A Utah federal court will consider the Pace family’s lawsuit against California anesthesiologist Barry Swerdlow, whom they had earlier hired as an expert witness as part of their medical liability suit against another anesthesiologist, Stephen Shuput, whom they blamed for their late daughter’s death. After agreeing to come on board as an expert for the Paces, Swerdlow examined Shuput’s deposition and concluded that Shuput had met the standard of care; he proceeded to inform Shuput’s lawyers of this, and they quickly got the case dismissed. The Paces then sued Swerdlow for “malpractice, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent infliction of emotional distress,” to quote AMNews’s catalogue. Swerdlow conceded that he was new at the expert witness game and that it would probably have been a good idea for him to have read Shuput’s deposition earlier. The EleventhTenth Circuit ruled that a lower court should consider the Paces’s contention that they had suffered legally actionable damages from Swerdlow’s actions. (Bonnie Booth, “Expert who changed mind claims immunity, but plaintiffs still sue”, American Medical News, Apr. 14).
Judge Gorsuch, dissenting from the EleventhTenth Circuit’s ruling, wrote:
Parties already exert substantial influence over expert witnesses, often paying them handsomely for their time, and expert witnesses are, unfortunately and all too frequently, already regarded in some quarters as little more than hired guns. When expert witnesses can be forced to defend themselves in federal court beyond the pleading stage simply for changing their opinions – with no factual allegation to suggest anything other than an honest change in view based on a review of new information – we add fuel to this fire. We make candor an expensive option and risk incenting experts to dissemble rather than change their views in the face of compelling new information. The loser in all this is, of course, the truth-finding function and cause of justice our legal system is designed to serve.
(Decision of the Day, Mar. 5; Karen Franklin, Forensic Psychologist, Mar. 7; The Briefcase, Mar. 7).
Torkelsen Lerach scandal, cont’d
Turns out when Bill Lerach cut his plea deal with the feds, they not only agreed to spare him prosecution on other matters, but also agreed not to press charges against former Milberg lawyers (and current Coughlin Stoia partners) Patrick Coughlin and Keith Park over their dealings with Torkelsen. Another sign, perhaps, that Lerach managed to cut himself and his circle a good deal in the plea negotiations. (WSJ law blog, Mar. 6; earlier).
Milberg expert Torkelsen pleads guilty to perjury
This looks pretty major, pattern-and-practice-wise:
John B. Torkelsen, a former expert witness for Milberg Weiss, has agreed to plead guilty to perjury, admitting he lied to a federal court judge in a securities class action case about how he was getting paid.
Prosecutors in the Milberg Weiss case have been eyeing Torkelsen for years.
I wonder whether this will put a crimp in the image rehabilitation op-ed stylings of Bill “My Only Sin Was To Love the People Too Much” Lerach. The implications could ripple out to other class-action firms as well: “In an announcement about the plea agreement on Thursday, prosecutors claim that Torkelsen was retained by several firms” and that the other firms engaged in misbehavior akin to that of Torkelsen’s handlers at Milberg. (Amanda Bronstad, “Former Milberg Weiss Expert Witness Agrees to Plead Guilty to Perjury”, National Law Journal, Feb. 29). Our earlier coverage of Torkelsen is here.
$25 million for yanking hospital privileges
On Feb. 7 a jury found the Charleston Area Medical Center in West Virginia had wrongly revoked the privileges of vascular surgeon R. E. Hamrick, Jr. over a financial dispute. It awarded Hamrick $25 million, including $20 million in punitive damages; the dispute arose over Hamrick’s desire to set up a self-insurance fund against professional liability as opposed to purchasing outside insurance. CAMC has retreated from initial talk of pay freezes for staff, but it is unclear where it will come up with the money — about 4 percent of its annual budget — in ways that have no impact on patients: “‘Any time you have to spend $15 million, how can it not affect the way we care for people?’ asked Dr. Tom Bowden, who also serves on CAMC’s Board of Trustees.” However, expert witness Jonathan Cunitz of Westport, Ct., who testified for the plaintiffs on punitive damages, told the Daily Mail that patients and employees “shouldn’t be concerned for a second” about cutbacks because the nonprofit community hospital could just pull the money from the magic rainbow wishing well could cover the punitive damage award “just out of the money generated by Hamrick’s surgeries,” in the newspaper’s phrasing. It sounds almost as if hospital revenues from surgery constitute pure gravy and do not involve any correlative expenditures. The hospital’s CEO notes that the damage award “was higher than the $15 million CAMC spent to purchase the former Putnam General Hospital in 2006.” (Justin D. Anderson, “Doctor responds to colleague’s lawsuit win against CAMC”, Charleston Daily Mail, Feb. 12; Eric Eyre, Charleston Gazette, Feb. 13, Feb. 20, Feb. 21; Chris Dickerson, West Virginia Record, Feb. 7).
February 14 roundup
- Examiner newspaper begins series on how Milberg Weiss used nonprofit foundation to project its clout among judges, academics, influentials [Institute for Law & Economic Policy, three-parter]
- Judge Canute, or just reporter’s awkward wording? Australian jurist with great eyeglasses bans screening of TV drama in state of Victoria; “Under the order, all internet material relating to the series is also banned.” [Herald Sun] (More explanation on the court order: The Australian).
- Times Square’s Naked Cowboy sues over M & M candy ad playing off his image [NY Post]
- Bite mark testimony makes another chapter in catalogue of dubious prosecutorial forensics [Folo’s NMC on two Mississippi Innocence Project cases]
- Update: Pennsylvania court upholds disputed fees in Kia-brake class action [Legal Intelligencer; earlier]
- Best not take McCain too literally when he says he’d demand that judicial nominees have a proven record on Constitutional interpretation [Beldar]
- Expert witness coaching …. by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? [Nordberg; earlier]
- For some reason many Boston residents feel menaced by city’s plan for police to go door to door asking “voluntary,” “friendly” permission to search premises for guns [Globe]
- Lots and lots of publications print Mohammed cartoon in solidarity with
Danish cartoonist and assassination-plot target Kurt Westergaard [CNN; Malkin] - Calgary Muslim leader withdraws official complaint against Ezra Levant over his publication of Mohammed cartoons [National Post; earlier]
- Steyn, relatedly: critics dragging my book before Canadian tribunals wish not to “start a debate”, but to cut one off [National Post]