Choosing one expert witness is always challenging, but many cases require more than one expert witness or consultant to complete the job. Imagine a typical car accident where issues arise regarding personal property damage, product liability, medical injuries, insurance claims and more. Any or all of these individual issues might require the need for a specialty expert witness. ForensisGroup’s expert witness directory has a database of over 2,000 pre-screened and highly qualified experts. Whether you’re looking for a product liability expert trained in accident reconstruction, or an oral surgeon who specializes in temporomandibular joint disorder (TMJ syndrome), ForensisGroup can help you find the perfect match. Our experts include some of the nation’s leading environmental engineers, failure analysis experts, LEED consultants, construction defect experts, forensic toxicologists, accountants, and more. We have placed experts in over 10,000 cases nationwide, so don’t let your location stop you from contacting our team of legal experts. We offer free no-obligation recruiting, free consultations, and a network of expert witnesses and consultants that are unparalleled in both quality and depth. Located in Southern California, ForensisGroup is the go to company to find a California expert witness or consultant. Stop wasting time and valuable resources. Contact ForensisGroup and cross examine thousands of experts immediately with just one phone call.
Attorneys and expert witnesses should be aware of recent legislation passed in Florida, which deeply divides the legal and medical communities, potentially changes the manner in which medical malpractice lawsuits will be tried and ultimately determined, and affects every litigator, in Florida and beyond.
”Florida Senate Passes Bill on Medical Malpractice Expert Witnesses,” Associated Press (Apr. 15, 2013). Moreover, under the bill’s provisions, any medical provider who has treated a patient and is called to testify is permitted to, “breach patient confidentiality and give attorneys information about a patient’s treatment.” Id.
Because a multitude of methods exist by which 
Florida, of late, has had many recent trends in civil litigation and requests for new legislation, particularly in the context of expert witnesses. See, e.g. Helicon Foundation Repair, “Fraudulent Sinkhole Claims Increase As Geologists Blame Current Weather Trends,” Seffner, FL: Sinkhole News, 
The Federal Rules of Evidence have long provided myriad hearsay exceptions, in cases when testimony is introduced. One of the most important hearsay exceptions, particularly with respect to expert witness testimony, is the “business records” exception. FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (FRE) 803(6). Although many attorneys have an extensive level of familiarity with FRE 803(6) and the business records exemption, trends indicate that the burden of proof has changed, significantly affecting each litigator’s practice and every expert witness who relies upon business records to assist jurors in understanding testimony.
Most jurisdictions allow consumers to bring claims under the concept of strict liability, that is, the manufacturer is held to be strictly liable simply for having placed a defective product into the stream of commerce which results in injury to the consumer. Strict liability for consumer products arose as a matter of public policy, with the intent to provide consumers with a means of legal recourse in the event of injuries sustained as the result of a defective product. Strict liability has often been referred to as no-fault liability, in that, actions permitting claims of strict liability, can allow for recovery without the need to prove manufacturer fault.
Consumer Product Liability is a general terms that encompasses a much broader topic. To best understand the term, it is first necessary to know precisely what a consumer product is. When presented in its most simplistic terms, a product that is made available for consumption by the general public, and thus placed into the stream of commerce, is typically considered to be a consumer product. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301(1) and (3):
In a recent case, the Connecticut Supreme Court held, inter alia, that trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony by an expert who was disclosed by the plaintiff several months after the discovery scheduling deadline and one week before jury selection began.
One of the most pressing issues before attorneys and courts has arisen in the wake of a highly unclear decision issued by the Supreme Court, concerning the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, and whether expert testimony is permissible under that Clause. See Williams v. Illinois, 132 S.Ct. 2221 (Jun. 28, 2012). After the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision, with two separate pluralities (4 concurring opinions) and one lone dissent, the lower courts have had a trying time applying Williams to expert testimony. For the litigator, however, it is important to understand what Williams did and didn’t say, what lower courts are likely to do, and why all of this greatly affects experts. Whether the case at hand is civil or criminal, Williams has been discussed and grappled with by nearly every lower court and, accordingly, regardless of practice area, its potential implications should be made clear to every attorney.
The “exceptional circumstances” test is used to determine if a party can depose an examining physician who is not designated by the other party as an expert witness. In this recent case from Nevada federal court, a mortgagor sought to depose a non-designated psychologist who had examined the mortgagor pursuant to court-ordered independent medical examination. The defendants filed emergency motion for protective order and motion to strike mortgagor's expert designation of the psychologist.
