In a personal injury case where the plaintiff’s experts diverge on an injured man’s ability to return to work, the defendant unsuccessfully tried to convince the judge that some of those opinions should be excluded.

U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rejected defendant Regal Ideas Inc.’s motion to exclude to testimony from two of plaintiff Jonathan Malcolm’s experts despite allegedly contradictory testimony, reasoning that differing opinions by experts in different fields aren’t mutually exclusive in the case.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]