expert rule in Texas

2013We note that according to Baker the medical records consist of over 2,000 pages. 5 Appellees cited Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 720 (Tex. 1997) to support their argument that an expert report requires that the expert rule out other possible causes of the patient’s injury.

2013We note that according to Baker the medical records consist of over 2,000 pages. 5 Appellees cited Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 720 (Tex. 1997) to support their argument that an expert report requires that the expert rule out other possible causes of the patient’s injury.

2015See generally E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 559 (Tex.1995) (finding that the failure of the expert to rule out other causes of the damage rendered his opinion little more than speculation); Parker v. Employers Mut.

2015See gener- to derive a higher relative risk if this process does ally E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, not comport with sound scientific methodology. 923 S.W.2d 549, 559 (Tex.1995) (finding that the failure of the expert to rule out other causes of the The FDA has promulgated regulations that de- damage rendered his opinion little more than specu- tail the requirements for clinical investigations of lation); Parker v. Employers Mut.

2006See Smith v. State, 65 S.W.3d 332, 344 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.); Kerr v. State, 921 S.W.2d 498, 502 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).

2006See Smith v. State , 65 S.W.3d 332, 344 (Tex. App.--Waco 2001, no pet.); Kerr v. State , 921 S.W.2d 498, 502 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).

2006See Smith v. State, 65 S.W.3d 332, 344 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.); Kerr v. State, 921 S.W.2d 498, 502 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).

2006See Smith v. State , 65 S.W.3d 332, 344 (Tex. App.--Waco 2001, no pet.); Kerr v. State , 921 S.W.2d 498, 502 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).

2015See Gammill witness need not be a specialist in a particular branch of v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W.2d 713 , 726 the profession on which the physician offers testimony).

2000See id. at 726 (recognizing that in non-scientific cases, it is impossible to set out specific criteria for evaluating the reliability of an expert witness).

2013The State must provide a defendant with the basic tools to present his defense, but need not “purchase for an indigent defendant all the assistance that his wealthier counterparts might buy.” Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333, 337 (Tex. Crim.

2012Request for Appointment of an Expert In issue one, Pointe contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for appointment of an expert. “[D]ue process requires access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense.” Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333, 337 (Tex.Crim.App.1995).

2012Id. (“To the extent that the Gardners allege that SADI is liable only vicariously for Dr. Keszler’s actions, the expert requirement is fulfilled as to SADI if the report is adequate as to Dr. Keszler.”); see University of Tex. Sw.

2012Id. (“To the extent that the Gardners allege that SADI is liable only vicariously for Dr. Keszler’s actions, the expert requirement is fulfilled as to SADI if the report is adequate as to Dr. Keszler.”); see University of Tex. Sw.

2012See Geo Viking, Inc. v. Tex-Lee Operating Co., 817 S.W.2d 357, 363 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1991, writ denied).

2012See Geo Viking, Inc. v. Tex-Lee Operating Co., 817 S.W.2d 357, 363 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1991, writ denied).

2024Feltson averred that appellant asked trial counsel to hire an expert to challenge the toxicology report alleging that her blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit, and that trial counsel assured appellant she would get probation. –12– 466 U.S. at 690–91.

2004INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL In point of error one, appellant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney “never retained or consulted an expert to test the validity of [the DNA] results.” The legal standard set out in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 (1984), applies to appellant’s ineffective assistance claim.

2026But a physician may qualify as an expert on this standard if he “shows he is familiar with the standard of care for nurses as to the care or treatment of the medical condition in question, including through the supervision or training of nurses in this context.” Id.; Harvey v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc., 578 S.W.3d 638, 647 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (“[W]hen a physician states that she is familiar with the standard of care and requirements for nonphysician healthcare providers and that she has worked with, interacted with, and supervised such healthcare providers,

2025See Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 , 8 The trial court correctly noted the waiver when Appellant’s counsel raised the hearsay objection to the second chart: [Defense] Same objection, Your Honor, cumulative, the document is based on hearsay, as well as calls for an expert analysis. [Court] Bring it up, let me see it.

2024PopCap Games, Inc. v. MumboJumbo, LLC, 350 S.W.3d 699, 718 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied).

2024See Tomasi v. Liao, 63 S.W.3d 62, 66 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (holding that membership on peer review committee of large hospital with active surgical service did not qualify non-surgeon to opine on postoperative care).

2023See Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 339 .

2022Joseph, 242 S.W.3d 799, 803 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied).

2019Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson, 993 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim.

2018Ramos v. State, 245 S.W.3d 410, 417-18 (Tex. Crim.

2017See id.

2017See Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897, 905-06 (Tex. 2004) (holding that expert’s incantation of “basic scientific and some engineering principles” and “reliance on the ‘laws of physics,’ without more, is an insufficient explanation”).

2016See Vela v. State, 209 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Tex. Crim.

2016Haase asked the Abraham Watkins Parties to add a fraud claim and another alleged 1 See Hughes v. Mahaney & Higgins, 821 S.W.2d 154, 157 (Tex. 1991). 2 tortfeasor to the litigation.

2015Co., 285 S.W.3d 106, 116 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (″Opinions drawn either from unreliable foundational data or flawed methodology and reasoning are unreliable and legally no evidence.″); Quiroz v. Covenant Health Sys., 234 S.W.3d 74, 88 (Tex. App. - El Paso 2007, pet. denied) (listing the same four tests but describing the connective reliability test as examining whether ″notwithstanding the validity of the underlying data and methodology, there is an analytical gap in the expert evidence″); Allstate Tex. Lloyds v. Mason, 123 S.W.3d 690, 698 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 2003, no pet.)

2015Id. at 301-02.

2015Id.

2015An expert on the standard of care may also rely on literature or standards promulgated by an industry group. 1499 See, e.g., Frazza v. United States, 529 F. Supp. 2d 61, 73 (D.D.C. 2008) (″Dr. Atlas’ testimony regarding the use of mats and cones does not establish ″a specific, articulable (and articulated) standard of care.’ Significantly, Dr. Atlas bases his testimony on two things: his own ″experience’ and his observations of buildings in Washington D.C. on a rainy day.

2015Expressway Sign Assocs., 302 S.W.3d 866, 870 (Tex. 2009) (″To be reliable, the opinion must be based on sound reasoning and methodology.″). 239 Heller v. Shaw Indus., Inc., 167 F.3d 146, 155 (3d Cir. 1999).