A federal appeals court has rejected a New Jersey woman's attempts to reverse a defense verdict PetSmart won last year, finding that the woman's proposed retail expert had been correctly disqualified from testifying in the case.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Tuesday in Yazujian v. PetSmart that the district court judge handling the case at the trial level properly barred plaintiff Kim Yazujian's proposed expert under the standards outlined in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Yazujian had raised the issue on appeal after a U.S. District Court of New Jersey jury rendered a defense verdict in the slip-and-fall case she brought against the retail giant.

Yazujian had sought to have Robert Loderstedt testify as an expert about retail safety, but Third Circuit Judge Michael Chagares, who wrote the panel's April 17 opinion, agreed with the U.S. District Court judge that Loderstedt's testimony would “not assist the jury in understanding or determine a fact in issue.”

“Loderstedt had no academic background in retail safety, no formal training in retail management or safety, and no retail work experience other than a job as a stock clerk more than 50 years prior,” Chagares said. “Critically, he did not even review the safety manual or policies of the PetSmart store at issue in this case.”

According to Chagares, Yazujian slipped on a puddle of water and fell inside a PetSmart store in January 2012. She sued the retail chain for negligence and a trial was held in June 2017.

During trial, a Daubert hearing was held to determine whether Loderstedt was qualified to testify before the jury. The judge, however, determined that Loderstedt was not qualified as an expert, that his methodology was flawed, and that the jury would not benefit from his testimony, Chagares said.

The trial proceeded and ended with a defense verdict in favor of PetSmart.

According to Chagares, Loderstedt had testified during the hearing that his specialized knowledge and expertise were based on his review of more than 100 retail manuals, as well as the time he spent training under a man who has opined in more than 750 cases as a retail safety expert. The training, Chagares said, involved visiting retail stores.

As part of her appeal, Yazujian contended that the trial court questioned Loderstedt excessively, showing that the court was allegedly biased against allowing the testimony.

Chagares, however, said in a footnote that district courts have “considerably leeway” in determining whether an expert's testimony is reliable, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in questioning Loderstedt.

“Loderstedt conceded that there are no formal industry standards in the area of retail safety. Instead he sought to offer an opinion on his view of what the industry best practices were, based on a review of unspecified retail manuals,” Chagares said. “Accordingly, we agree with the District Court that Loderstedt was not qualified as an expert in retail safety, and that his testimony was the product of methods and principles that were not reliable.”

Neither James Kimball of Seigel, who represented Yazujian, nor John Wutz of The Chartwell Law Offices, who represented PetSmart, immediately returned calls seeking comment.