Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Spiro et al. v. HealthPort Technologies, LLC

Area of Law:

Class action; New York public health fee law

Grounds:

1. Defendant sought to preclude Plaintiff’s expert report on the grounds that the expert was not qualified and that his work was unreliable.
2. Plaintiff sought to preclude Defendant’s rebuttal expert report on the grounds that the expert was not qualified and that the report was irrelevant.

Outcome:

Denied.

Analysis:

The court declined to preclude Richard Royston’s expert report for either of the reasons raised by defendant.  First the court noted that it was not necessary to have expertise in “release of information” (ROI) or healthcare industries as Plaintiff would require.  Slip op. at 2.  While some experience with finance and accounting concepts would be required, it was not necessary for Royston to have “industry expertise” to perform the task of calculating costs incurred.  Id.  The court also remained unconvinced that critiquing Royston’s work would require excluding it altogether.  Instead, the court noted that the jury could determine which portions of Royston’s analysis “are and are not persuasive.”  Id.

The court also declined to preclude Bryan Hirsch’s rebuttal expert report.  Hirsch’s testimony was only directed at undermining Royston’s reasoning and conclusions.  Id. at 2.  Because no determination had yet been made “on the contours of Royston’s permissible trial testimony” it was premature to decide what critiques of Royston’s testimony Hirsh would be permitted to make at trial.  Id.