On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Daubert Practice 2013: How to Avoid Getting Sliced by Cutting-Edge Developments in Expert Witness Challenges

Released on: Oct. 7, 2013
Running Time: 03:36:47

Running Time Segment Title Faculty Format
[01:01:31] Daubert - The Practice Michael Williams ~ Williams Love O’Leary & Powers
Mary A. Wells ~ Wells, Anderson & Race, LLC
Nathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A. Schachtman, Esq., PC
David M. Cohen ~ Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[00:59:14] Demonstrative of a Daubert Hearing Michael Williams ~ Williams Love O’Leary & Powers
David Garabrant, M.D., M.P.H. ~ Emeritus Prof. of Occupational Medicine and Epidemiology, Univ. of Michigan School of Public Health, EpidStat Institute
Mary A. Wells ~ Wells, Anderson & Race, LLC
Nathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A. Schachtman, Esq., PC
David M. Cohen ~ Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC
On-Demand MP3 MP4
[01:30:22] Discussion of Daubert Rulings and Cutting Edge Developments in the Law Michael Williams ~ Williams Love O’Leary & Powers
David Garabrant, M.D., M.P.H. ~ Emeritus Prof. of Occupational Medicine and Epidemiology, Univ. of Michigan School of Public Health, EpidStat Institute
Mary A. Wells ~ Wells, Anderson & Race, LLC
Joe S. Cecil, Ph.D., J.D. ~ Division of Research, Federal Judicial Center
Nathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A. Schachtman, Esq., PC
David M. Cohen ~ Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC
On-Demand MP3 MP4

This illuminating seminar is presented by highly experienced Daubert practitioners who have litigated Daubert and similar issues under state law in federal and state courts throughout the country. Their insights into how Daubert challenges should be prepared, executed, and argued will assist counsel in developing and deploying effective Daubert strategies in any case where the admissibility of expert witness opinion testimony is likely to be challenged.

Lecture Topics 
[Total time 03:36:47]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Introduction* [00:05:40]
    David M. Cohen, Nathan A. Schachtman
  • Daubert - The Practice [01:01:31]
    Nathan A. Schachtman, Michael Williams, Mary A. Wells, David M. Cohen
  • Demonstrative of a Daubert Hearing [00:59:14]
    Nathan A. Schachtman, Michael Williams, Mary A. Wells, David Garabrant, M.D., M.P.H., David M. Cohen
  • Discussion of Daubert Rulings and Cutting Edge Developments in the Law [01:30:22]
    Nathan A. Schachtman, Mary A. Wells, Michael Williams, Joe S. Cecil, Ph.D., J.D., David Garabrant, M.D., M.P.H., David M. Cohen

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • The Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence—Time for Revision?
    Nathan A. Schachtman
  • The Role of the “Science Lawyer” in Modern Litigation
    Nathan A. Schachtman
  • Pain Pump Litigation: Report To Michael Williams, Esq., Re Shoulder Chondrolysis Causation
    David M. Cohen, Nathan A. Schachtman
  • Pain Pump Litigation: Report of Opinions Wheeler v. DJO, ET Al
    David M. Cohen, Nathan A. Schachtman
  • Pain Pump Litigation: Postarthroscopic Glenohumeral Chondrolysis (Abstract)
    David M. Cohen, Nathan A. Schachtman
  • Pain Pump Litigation: Glenohumeral Chondrolysis After Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review of Potential Contributors and Causal Pathways (Abstract)
    David M. Cohen, Nathan A. Schachtman
  • U.S. v. Kilpatrick, 2009 Wl 2058384 (S.D. FLA.) Order, June 25, 2009
  • Kilpatrick v. Breg, Opinion, August 12,2010, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • McClellan v. I-flow Corp., 710 F. Supp. 2d. 1092 (D. Ct. ORE. 2010)
  • Musgrave v. BREG, Order, Sept. 2, 2011, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio
  • Placencia v. I-flow Corp., Order, November 20, 2012, U.S. District Court, District of Arizona
  • Desultory Thoughts on Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products
    Nathan A. Schachtman
  • Toxic Tort Litigation: After Milward v. Acuity Products
  • Sometimes Doubt Doesn’t Sell: A Plaintiffs’ Lawyer’s Perspective on Milward v. Acuity Products
  • A Fitting Vision of Science for the Courtroom

Presentation Material

  • Daubert - The Practice
    Nathan A. Schachtman
  • Discussion of Daubert Rulings and Cutting-Edge Developments in the Law and Practice of Expert Witness Challenges
    Joe S. Cecil, Ph.D., J.D.
Co-Chair(s)
David M. Cohen ~ Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC
Nathan A. Schachtman ~ Nathan A. Schachtman, Esq., PC
Speaker(s)
Joe S. Cecil, Ph.D., J.D. ~ Division of Research, Federal Judicial Center
David Garabrant, M.D., M.P.H. ~ Emeritus Prof. of Occupational Medicine and Epidemiology, Univ. of Michigan School of Public Health, EpidStat Institute
Mary A. Wells ~ Wells, Anderson & Race, LLC
Michael Williams ~ Williams Love O’Leary & Powers

PLI makes every effort to accredit its On-Demand Web Programs and Segments.  Please check the Credit Information box to the right of each product description for credit information specific to your state.


On-Demand Web Programs and Segments
 are approved in:

Alabama1, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho*, Illinois , Iowa2*, Kansas, Kentucky*, Louisiana, Maine*, Mississippi, Missouri3, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire4, New Jersey, New Mexico5, New York6,  North Carolina7, North Dakota, Ohio8, Oklahoma9, Oregon*, Pennsylvania10, Rhode Island11, South Carolina, Tennessee12, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia13, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin14 and Wyoming*.

Iowa, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin DO NOT approve Audio Only On-Demand Web Programs.


Please Note: The State Bar of Arizona does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education requirement. PLI programs may qualify for credit based on the requirements outlined in the MCLE Regulations and Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. Rule 45.

*PLI will apply for credit upon request. Louisiana and New Hampshire: PLI will apply for credit upon request for audio-only on-demand web programs.


1Alabama: Approval of all web based programs is limited to a maximum of 6.0 credits.

 

2Iowa:  The approval is for one year from recorded date. Does not approve of Audio-only On-Demand Webcasts.

3Missouri:  On-demand web programs are restricted to six hours of self-study credit per year.  Self-study may not be used to satisfy the ethics requirements.  Self-study can not be used for carryover credit.

 

4New Hamphsire:  The approval is for three years from recorded date.

5New Mexico:  On-Demand web programs are restricted to 4.0 self-study credits per year. 


6New York:  Newly admitted attorneys may not take non-traditional course formats such as on-demand Web Programs or live Webcasts for CLE credit. Newly admitted attorneys not practicing law in the United States, however, may earn 12 transitional credits in non-traditional formats. 

7North Carolina:  A maximum of 4 credits per reporting period may be earned by participating in on-demand web programs. 


8Ohio:  To confirm that the web program has been approved, please refer to the list of Ohio’s Approved Self Study Activities at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us.  Online programs are considered self-study.  Ohio attorneys have a 6 credit self-study limit per compliance period.  The Ohio CLE Board states that attorneys must have a 100% success rate in clicking on timestamps to receive ANY CLE credit for an online program.

9Oklahoma:  Up to 6 credits may be earned each year through computer-based or technology-based legal education programs.


10Pennsylvania:  PA attorneys may only receive a maximum of four (4) hours of distance learning credit per compliance period. All distance learning programs must be a minimum of 1 full hour.
 

11Rhode Island:  Audio Only On-Demand Web Programs are not approved for credit.  On-Demand Web Programs must have an audio and video component.

12Tennessee:  The approval is for the calendar year in which the live program was presented.

13Virginia: All distance learning courses are to be done in an educational setting, free from distractions.

14Wisconsin: Ethics credit is not allowed.  The ethics portion of the program will be approved for general credit.  There is a 10 credit limit for on-demand web programs during every 2-year reporting period.  Does not approve of Audio-only On-Demand Webcasts.


Running time and CLE credit hours are not necessarily the same. Please be aware that many states do not permit credit for luncheon and keynote speakers.


If you have already received credit for attending some or the entire program, please be aware that state administrators do not permit you to accrue additional credit for repeat viewing even if an additional credit certificate is subsequently issued.


Note that some states limit the number of credit hours attorneys may claim for online CLE activities, and state rules vary with regard to whether online CLE activities qualify for participatory or self-study credits. For more information, call Customer Service (800) 260-4PLI (4754) or e-mail info@pli.edu.

 
Print Share Email