John Lanza was hurt in a motor vehicle accident. He settled with the underlying tortfeasor and brought suit against his UIM carrier Progressive Direct. One issue was whether he would be allowed to claim future damages based upon headaches, neck pain and back pain. He wanted to recover for the future care he received. He […]
Damages For Future Medical Care Based On Subjective Injuries Requires Expert Support
October 25, 2023 by
Upcoming Changes To Federal Rule Regarding Expert Testimony Are Truly Consequential
September 15, 2023 by
As of December 1, 2023, FRE 702 will change. The new rule, with redline changes is as follows: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that: […]
Nevada Hedonic Damages Update
February 23, 2023 by
A recent Order in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada excluded the testimony of plaintiff economics expert Dr. Stan Smith regarding his opinions on the loss of enjoyment of life suffered by the Plaintiff. Order Granting Defendants Motion in Limine. Jones v. Kelly, Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. Case No. A-19-803468-C (December 12, 2022). Plaintiff […]
Accident Reconstructionist Not Required for Low Impact Defense at Trial
July 13, 2016 by
The Nevada Supreme Court held in a minor rear end accident case that Accident Reconstruction experts are not necessary for mounting low impact defenses. Mr. Simao and his wife filed a claim against Ms. Rish claiming bodily injuries following an unremarkable rear end accident in stop and go traffic where no one was transported from […]
