Michael Hoenig

February 17, 2010 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, discusses U.S. Southern District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin's bombshell decision that copiously analyzes a series of discovery failures that led to sanctions against numerous plaintiff-companies, and serves as a practical roadmap on how real people and real attorneys may be confronted by real challenges regarding compliance only to wind up making judgments that come back to haunt them.

By Michael Hoenig

15 minute read

September 16, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that experts increasingly testify about, interpret and extrapolate from articles, yet the authors are unavailable to be cross-examined about reliability of the data presented or limits on conclusions the testifiers should draw from the work product.

By Michael Hoenig

16 minute read

August 11, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, a party that intends to rely upon an expert witness' testimony is required to furnish a report containing, among other things, "a complete statement of all opinions" the retained expert will provide "and the basis and reasons for them." Failure to comply with the rule's requirement, he warns, results in sanction: the offender is not allowed to introduce the expert's testimony as "evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial."

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

January 10, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that what may be vital practice for much of clinical medicine is not necessarily the best tool for use in the courtroom, where inspired guesswork or creative hunches amount to little more than the proverbial "speculation and conjecture" which the law repudiates.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

October 09, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, reports on a trio of decisions dealing with reliability of expert testimony. In Bland, the Eighth Circuit considers a treating physician's causation testimony based on a differential diagnosis. In Polski, the same court focuses on the absence of testing of the expert's theory despite plaintiff's argument that such testing would be unethical. And, in LeBlanc, a federal agency's draft report figures prominently in the Fifth Circuit's admissibility analysis.

By Michael Hoenig

10 minute read

February 14, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that to pursue a viable claim in products liability, there must be proof of "product identification." The claimant must establish that the defendant's relationship with the allegedly defective product stemmed from a sale of the product or some other transaction or connection the law recognizes as equivalent to a sale.

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

September 15, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herz�feld & Rubin, writes that despite a kind of dramatic sound to the words "excited utterance," most folks do not get stirred up by the term. However, for serious litigators the words should trigger sober thoughts about the law of evidence and, specifically, about an important exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule. A recent federal appellate decision shows how an excited utterance scenario can play out in a products liability case with pivotal consequences.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

February 14, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, warns that a recent ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court turns warnings litigation - the so-called "poor man's design claim" - into an undeserved treasure trove.

By Michael Hoenig

15 minute read

July 10, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that although Frye and Daubert screening criteria deservedly have center stage, it would be a mistake to conclude that, absent a specific Frye question which is timely raised, New York courts are then bereft of gatekeeping tools with which to sift out unreliable opinions. On the contrary, abundant precedents demonstrate that New York courts have adequate muscle to heave some shoddy expertise out of the courtroom.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

March 18, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that in an era witnessing massive discovery burdens, a perception by many that work product and attorney-client protections are being eroded by some courts, and the promotion of efforts to ensure civility in litigation, a recent decision is a refreshing declaration of ideals, of practical steps backed up by the threat of real sanctions.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read