Photo of John Sullivan
It’s that time of year again, so we’d like to tell you the story of the two experts in Schronk v. Laerdal Med. Corp., 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 15024 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2013), a litigation involving an allegedly defective external defibrillator device.  One was a causation expert, the other a defect expert.  The trial court excluded both of them.  The causation expert had no data to support his opinion, and the defect expert didn’t have the necessary medical training or experience with defibrillators or their batteries to offer a reliable opinion.  With no viable plaintiffs’ expert, the trial court granted the defendant’s summary judgment. motion.  The appellate court, in the opinion cited above, affirmed. 

Those are the details.  And given that we in the Northeast have experienced snow this holiday season, we give you the story of these two experts to the tune of “Let It Snow.”
 While the experts’ opinions were frightful
The court’s opinion was more insightful
It told the experts to hit the road
Let It Go! Let It Go! Let It Go!!
 It seems that after some rumination
One expert claimed he found causation
But a bare opinion is a no-go
Let It Go! Let It Go! Let It Go!
 The expert had no support for his opinion
Not even from the heart association
The court just had to let it go
Let It Go! Let It Go! Let It Go!

So the expert said goodbye
But he wasn’t the only one left
There was another one standing nearby
Who said he saw a defect

Not to worry, he had no qualifications
Neither training nor publications
So his lights were turned way down low
Let It Go! Let It Go! Let It Go!