The crash was caused by Matthew Todd Pearcy after he drove into the rear of a Jeep, which in turn collided with Brown’s truck.
Benzel macmaster md driver#
Plaintiff Ryan Brown was the front-most driver in a three-car crash on IH-35 that occurred on September 16, 2017. BACKGROUND This is a lawsuit seeking damages for personal injuries suffered after a motor vehicle accident. 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules. The District Court referred the motion to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for resolution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1:20-cv-0359-DAE ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objections and Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Richard A Watson and Benzel C. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION RYAN BROWN § § § § § V. Nursing Homes, Medical Malpractice, Legal Nurse Consultant, Independent Medical Examiner I.M.E.Brown v.
Hospitals & Medical Services Expert Witnesses. Playground Safety, Child Abuse, Alcohol Abuse, Education, Adoptions Toxicology, Weather, Metallurgy, Materials, Industrial Hygiene & Mold, Chemical, Environmental Environmental & Science Expert Witnesses. Mechanical Engineering, Structural Engineering, Safety Engineering, Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering, Electrical Engineering Human Resources, Vocational Rehabilitation, Sexual Harassment, Negligent Hiring, Employment, Discrimination, Life Care Planning Employment & Vocational Expert Witnesses. Documents & Handwriting Expert Witnesses. Plumbing & HVAC, Windows, Construction, Americans with Disabilities Act ADA, Roofing, Doors Construction & Architecture Expert Witnesses. Telecommunications, Computer, Intellectual Property, Communications Computers & Technology Expert Witnesses. Gems & Jewelry, Real Estate Valuation, Antiques, Art, & Collectibles, Machinery & Equipment Appraisal, Business Valuationīusiness, Financial & Marketing Securities, Expert Witnessesįorensic Accounting, Economics, Business, Bankruptcy, Banking Agricultural & Animals Expert Witnesses. Slip, Trip & Fall, OSHA, Fire, Human Factors, Failure Analysis, Labels & Warnings, Sports & Recreation, Accident Reconstruction, Product Liability Benzel MacMaster is granted in part and denied in part. Thus, the court denies this part of the motion.Ĭonclusion: The motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Dr. The court notes that MacMaster reviewed Ramos’s medical records, determined the extent of her injuries, and opined as to whether the treatment she received were necessary. However, the court notes that Ramos’s argument that MacMaster’s expert testimony is unreliable, irrelevant, and confusing the jury fails because MacMaster was not hired to testify on causation, rather to opine on whether past medical expenses were reasonable or necessary. Thus, the court grants Ramos’s motion on these grounds. The court opines that it is not clear as to what qualifies MacMaster to opine on the reasonableness of fees in fields that he has not done billing for in over twenty five years. In addition, Home Depot points out that MacMaster’s calculations are based on CPT codes, which he interpreted based on his training and experience. Home Depot argues that MacMaster should be allowed to testify on these latter matters because he has been involved in coding an billing practices related to the treatment he provides. The court also states that MacMaster claims that he has not billed as to neurology, neurosurgery, a nesthesiology, chiropractic medicine, and as a pain specialist ever or not within twenty years. 
Ramos has filed a motion to exclude this expert from testifying.ĭiscussion: Ramos argues that MacMaster’s testimony should be excluded for three reasons: 1) His opinions are not relevant, unreliable, and confusing to the jury 2) He is not qualified to testify on the necessity of medical bills that are in areas outside of his expertise 3) His counter-affidavit is conclusory.įirst, the court notes that MacMaster is an orthopedic surgeon who has been in practice for over forty years. Benzel MacMaster to provide expert testimony. In order to prove their case, The Home Depot has hired Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness Dr. Ramos states that she slipped on an unidentified substance on the floor and sustained severe injuries to her entire body. The plaintiff, an employee at The Home Depot, claims that she was injured while she was walking to back of the gardening department.
The Home Depot Inc – United States District Court – Northern District of Texas – March 1st, 2022) involves a personal injury claim. Summary: Orthopedic Surgery Expert Witness testimony is allowed in part, even though the plaintiff argued that the expert was not qualified as he has not done billing in certain practices for over 25 years.įacts: This case ( Ramos v.
0 kommentar(er)
