On a damages trial, the goal of plaintiff's counsel is to maximize damages. Frequently, insurance company managers and claim representatives ask, "How much can plaintiff put up on the board?", meaning what can the plaintiff prove in special damages. The amount a plaintiff can show for past and future medical expenses, past and future lost earning, and other economic damages are critical components of a plaintiff's direct case. The theory being, a jury will be more apt to award hard numbers for actual damages than a large pain and suffering award. What the plaintiff, "puts up on the board" can also be a springboard to a request for a pain and suffering number. If your special damages are at or near seven figures, your pain and suffering numbers for past and future damages, can easily be three to five times that number. Or at least that's the theory.

Frequently we find on high exposure cases, plaintiffs will call a life care expert, a doctor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, to testify to future medical care required for the injured plaintiff and an economist to give the jury actual numbers for the cost of future medical care over the plaintiff's lifetime. How does the defense attorney approach this effective combination of expert witnesses?

An approach we have found effective is to contrast and compare 'made for litigation costs' with the reality of what the plaintiff is doing for future medical care. If the plaintiff stopped treatment two years ago, is on no medications, not seeking any further P.T., has not returned to any surgeon in two years and has resumed normal daily activities, the life care expert on expounding the necessity of future medical care at exorbitant prices can be made to look less than credible before a jury. Take for example our recent exchange with Dr. Edwin Richter on the case discussed above.

Q Doctor, you've testified over a hundred times, correct?
A Yes.

Q So you know the rules of cross-examination?
A Yes.

Q If I ask you a yes or no question, you'll answer it yes or no?
A Yes.

Q And am I correct that you are not Miss Kim's treating physician? You saw her once for purposes of this lawsuit, correct?
A Yes.

Q The treatment plan that you put together, this is just for this lawsuit, correct?
A Yes.

Q That has nothing to do with her actual treatment by her own physicians, this is purely for litigation purposes, correct?
A Yes.

Q The recommendations that you made to see a spine specialist, pain specialist, physical therapy, medications, MRIs, 20 EMGs, x-rays, MRIs, surgery, future surgery, that's all just for litigation, it's not endorsed by any of her doctors; is that fair to say?
A I don't know if any of her doctors have seen it, but I would not know.

Q Well, let me ask you that. Did you talk to any of her doctors?
A No.

Q Other than seeing Miss Kim last October -- was it October 2016?
A August.

Q August, last August, over a year ago, for one hour, did you talk to any of her doctors, Drs. Berkowitz, Das, Shiau, Rafiy, Schneider, her primary care physicians, about what they felt her treatment plan should be going forward?
A No.

Q Do you think it would be a more accurate portrayal of what her future medical needs are if you interviewed any of those doctors?
A Not necessarily, no.

Q Now, as part of your fee, I would anticipate that before you came to testify you would see her again, so you could give this jury an accurate representation of what her current condition is. Did you do that?
A No.

Q Would it have been more accurate to give a portrayal to the jury if you had a conversation and an interview with her contemporaneously with your testimony?
A Yes.

Q And nothing prevented you from doing that, correct?
A Yes.

Q Did you discuss any of these recommendations with her?
A No.

Q Let me get this straight, you're telling the jury that this is what she needs (indicating)?
A Yes.

Q And you never told her?
A That she would need those? No.

Q You're just coming in to say it this one time for this lawsuit?
A Yes.

Q Is it fair in your mind, Doctor, to award the plaintiff future medical costs for things that she doesn't need?
MR. HOLBROOK: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

This is a partial transcript of the cross-examination of plaintiff's medical consultant. Dr. Jerry Lubliner is a favorite expert witness for plaintiffs. He is often called as a consultant, with no treatment given to the plaintiff. He is polished, sincere, exceptionally well-spoken, talented and extremely bright. He likes to show he is the smartest guy in the courtroom. A defendant can use that narcissistic trait to their distinct advantage on cross-examination. A jury may be charmed and impressed by the direct examinations, but on the cross, defense counsel can show his true colors. Take, for example, this recent exchange between Tom Craven of our office and Dr. Lubliner in Kings County before Judge Dawn Jiminez-Salta during a July 2017 trial on a high exposure case with $2.3 Million in coverage and 100% liability against the defendant.

The plaintiff had a laminectomy and fusion from L3 to the Sacrum in 2011. The plaintiff also had a total left hip replacement in 2011. The plaintiff had a right knee arthroscopy in 2012 and a total right knee replacement in 2015. The plaintiff also had a left carpal tunnel release surgery in 2013. The 60-year-old plaintiff was out of work for over 300 days post-accident. This case could have resulted in a verdict above the policy limits. The case settled for $375,000 based on the strength of Tom's cross-examination.

To set the stage, a jury should know the Doctor's experience in the courtroom and counsel must take the upper hand having the Doctor agree to answer the simplest of questions with a yes or no. Here, Dr. Lubliner could not concede that simple point and made himself look foolish from the start of cross-examination:

Q.   In fact, you have testified in court more than 250 times, correct? 

Then on the medicine, Dr. Lubliner, dropped the ball and lost the match by failing to concede the obvious:

 Q.   You don't believe that he had a preexisting degenerative condition in his right knee; is that your testimony?

Put the Pieces of the Puzzle Together With These Two Reports
by Frank Scahill

I have been telling juries for decades that Emergency Room records and the Ambulance Call Report/Prehospital Care Report are the two most important medical records they can use to "put the pieces of the puzzle" in order. The EMS records and ER records can be described as a window into the truth of what happened to the plaintiff before the view is blocked by the Doctor the plaintiff was referred to by his lawyer. The EMS and ER records can be used to portray an accurate picture of what happened to the plaintiff at the scene of the accident and their complaints in the ER, what tests were performed and what diagnosis was made. Contrasting the accurate representation of the plaintiff's symptoms and physical condition, as documented in the Ambulance Call Report and ER records with the plaintiff's complaints to his "Litigation Doctor" after the lawsuit was contemplated or filed can be highly effective.

What is important to highlight in the Ambulance Call Report/Prehospital Care Report? Remember the goal of the EMS crew is to assess the level of injury, treat emergent care issues, stabilize the patient and transport that patient safely to a trauma center. What will be recorded on the EMS sheet?

Vital Signs: Respiration; Pulse rate per minute; Blood Pressure. Your plaintiff claims she was in agony at the scene but all vital signs are normal. No increase in respiration; pulse rate or blood pressure surely does not comport with the plaintiff's description of the accident and injuries.

Head Trauma: The EMS record always includes a description of Head Trauma and Loss of Consciousness (LOC). You will most likely see a notation "DENIES LOC OR HEAD TRAUMA" followed by "AOx3" alert and oriented to person, time, and place. You may also see a GSW score (Glasgow Coma Scale). Lowest score is 3 and highest is 15. "PEARL" Pupils Equal And Reactive to Light, is often followed after these entries.

Objective Physical Assessment: The EMS description of injury is equally helpful. A typical description will read: "Patient is a 69 y.o. female found ambulatory at the scene. Pt. c/o pain in both knees and her nose following an MVA. Pt. is seat-belted driver of front end impact with airbag deployment. Pt. has no other obvious signs of head injury. Denies loss of consciousness, headache or dizziness, Denies back pain. Pt. has no obvious deformity, swelling or bleeding at injury site, full range of motion, pt. was transported to ER without incidence, no treatment was given."

Treatment Given: How the plaintiff got in the ambulance will be recorded. Did she walk; removed by chair, backboard; was a Cervical Collar placed to stabilize the neck or more importantly, did the plaintiff refuse C-Collar? Was oxygen administered, was a limb stabilized, were restraints applied?
All of the notations above can be used to your advantage in contrasting the plaintiff's description and mechanism of injury with what was accurately recorded by the unbiased medical expert, the EMS technician.

The Emergency Room Record is a treasure trove of details to use to your advantage. The record will be in electronic from and you can show the ER record to the jury on a projector screen while you are cross-examining the plaintiff's expert medical witness. Contrast what the plaintiff's physician is telling the jury was the mechanism of injury for the alleged shoulder tear, knee tear, cervical or lumbar pathology with the findings in the ER record.

The ER record will have critical fields:

Chief Complaint
Pain Scale
History of Present Illness
Review of Symptoms
Past Medical History
Physical Exam: Musculoskeletal & Neurologic assessment.
Vital Signs
Medical decision Making: Orders
Diagnostic Tests
Differential Diagnosis
Prescriptions

Each one of these entries can help a defendant. I find it most effective to jump from the plaintiff's physician's records from the Doctor testifying to the ER record. Three weeks post-accident the plaintiff's pain scale is noted as 10/10 by the plaintiff's Doctor while in the ER the pain scale was 4/10 and the plaintiff's pain was described as mild, in no acute distress. The plaintiff's Doctor documents Range of Motion (ROM) deficits which show severe limitations when the ER records document full range of motion (FROM) with no tenderness to palpitation, no swelling, no ecchymosis (bruising). You can use the "First Responder's Report" and the ER record to full advantage on summation.

"Ladies and Gentleman, you recall I told you in my opening statement the Ambulance Call Report and Emergency Room record were windows into the truth about what happened to Mr. Plaintiff. I have highlighted those entries for you because I want you to know that what happens to medicine in a courtroom is not what you experience in your everyday life. In the real world you go to the Doctor to get better. When you are involved in a Personal Injury Lawsuit as a plaintiff you go to the Doctor forever but you never get better while your case is pending. The Emergency Room Record and EMS call report document for you, by First Responders, what actually happened. The Doctors and EMS workers that made those entries are eyewitnesses with no agenda, no stake in the lawsuit. They are not paid $7,500 to testify here as was Dr. X. They have no interest in a lawsuit or a personal injury case. Their only role as First Responders is to treat the patient and provide proper medical care. They are under a legal obligation to accurately and truthfully report their findings. Why didn't the plaintiff call them to the stand to testify if this case is legitimate? Why didn't you have the opportunity to hear what they had to say? The answer is obvious to you as the entries in the Hospital record...."

I have attached the proper request form for the FDNY EMS report. The cost for the record is $2.25, the best money you can spend in the defense of a case. Don't forget the HIPPA authorization when requesting the records.

Dr. Leon Reyfman is a pain management specialist, licensed in New York from 2007. His fee for testifying is $6,000 and he has appeared in Court for plaintiffs 12 to 13 times from 2008. His referrals frequently come from Dr. Michael Gerling, an orthopedic spine surgeon who he met at S.U.N.Y Downstate in 2007. His pain management procedures include epidural injections under fluoroscopy, and percutaneous discectomies, procedures that have become as common as an Xray on our litigation files. Critical to a plaintiff alleging future medical expenses, a pain management physician can testify as to the need for future medical treatment, essentially placing the ball on the tee for the plaintiff's economist to discuss the cost of the future treatment. In a 2015 case in Queens, Dr. Reyfman gave the following opinion on future treatment:

"My opinion is based on the fact that she still has lower back pain, her diagnosis would be at this point failed surgery syndrome. She will need further care with conservative treatment, physical therapy several times a year and pain medications. She will need intervention treatment with injections, the injections would be an epidural destroyed, lumbar facet injection, she may need a radio frequency ablation. This procedure is done to destroy the nerves that give sensation to these joints. She may need a procedure that's called spinal cord stimulator, a surgical procedure done for a patient that had surgery."

How do you cross examine a pain management physician? What do you highlight and what can you do to blunt the effect of this testimony? In Halina Imran v. R. Barany Monuments Inc, (21083/12), Paul Duer obtained a defense verdict before Judge Ritholtz on the issue of causation where the 45 year old plaintiff underwent L5-S1 posterior spinal fusion with instrumentation by Dr. Gerling and subsequent pain management by Dr. Reyfman. In his cross examination of the Pain Management Physician, Paul effectively highlighted the lack of medical records provided to Dr. Reyfman before he initiated his treatment plan; the similarities in his treatment of patients referred from Dr. Gerling; the gap in treatment by the plaintiff; and the issue of secondary gain. Based on the verdict, the jury obviously felt the Gerling-Reyfman team was less than credible. Here is an excerpt of the cross:

Q. When you did the first injection on your first exam, you had none of her records other than the lumbar MRI?
A. Correct.

Q. You don't think it's important to see records before you inject somebody?
A. She came in two months or two and a half months after the injury. She started physical therapy, which I have written in my notes that she had treatment consistent with medication and physical therapy. She described quite a bit of pain when she came in for the first time. And, even though I don't have written statements, if counsel wants me to write that she had no relief with physical therapy, if someone says that it's enough to make a conclusion that physical therapy was not effective and I don't need medical records such as physical therapy to form -- I need to examine the patient, look at the MRI and determine the best treatment plan.

Q. The MRI?
A. And films.

Q. And there were pain complaints?
A. Sorry.

Q. She complained of pain?
A. Yes.

Q. And what did she rate her pain in the lumbar spine when she saw you in February?
A. Four out of ten.

Q. Are you familiar with the term secondary gain?
A. Yes.

Q. What does that mean?
A. Trying to do something for financial gain.

Q. Like a lawsuit?
A. Lawsuit.

Q. And you would agree the pain rating is subjective?
A. Yes.

Q. Are you aware that May 15, 2015, that was right before we were going to begin a trial?
A. I only learned about the trial a week ago.

Read the transcript here.

Dr. Paul Ivancic is an Associate Research Scientist in Orthopedics and Rehabilitation at Yale. He has five Master's Degrees including a Master of Science Degree in Bioengineering; a Master's Degree in computer science; and a Master's Degree in mathematics from the University of Pennsylvania. He has two additional Master's Degrees from Yale in Philosophy and Biomedical Engineering, and a Doctoral Degree in Biomedical Engineering from Yale. His resume includes work for NASA and the Center for Disease Control and he has published extensively in the field of Biomedical Engineering.

How do you face the smartest man in the room at trial on Cross-Examination? You obviously are not going toe-to-toe with him on science or engineering or math for that matter. How about embracing his credentials and highlighting them to the jury? Go through all his degrees and ask him about them. Talk about his accomplishments in his field and build him up to be the smartest man in the world, not just the Courtroom. Then, after having him admit all his training, degrees, awards, ask, "And, now Doctor you are involved in Personal Injury cases?".

When pressed Dr. Ivancic could not recall how many cases he has worked on since he began personal injury work in 2007. A man with a Master's Degree in Computer Science and Mathematics, claimed he does not keep a list of cases, nor could he tell what percentage of his income is gleamed from Personal Injury work. He also could not tell the jury how many cases he is presently working on. His lack of forthrightness about his PI work can be used to your advantage. Why would the plaintiff need to hire an expert like this if the case had merit? More importantly, why would an expert like this get involved in PI work? You can go to town on this issue in summation. See the direct and cross-examination of Dr. Ivancic here.

I imagine every trial lawyer wanted to say that to an expert witness on cross examination at some stage in every trial. What happens when the Judge says that to your expert witness in front of a jury? This was our experience last month in Kings County before Judge Francois Rivera in SETH PARISER v. AG MEDALLION MANAGEMENT CORP. et. al. (Index No.: 1816/12).

In the course of the direct examination of the defendant's Biomechanical Expert, Dr. Robert Fijan, the Court interrupted the questioning to inquire whether the witness agreed that the plaintiff, who claimed bilateral SLAP tears of the labrum, did, in fact, have the condition complained about.

THE COURT: Let's keep it simple. Do you have an opinion on whether or not the plaintiff has SLAP tears on both shoulders?

THE WITNESS: From what I've reviewed he had labrum tears. I'm not sure that it was a SLAP tear or not on the left shoulder, but it's, at least, a similar type of tear of the labrum.

THE COURT: I have to take your answer and filter it and figure out if it's a yes or no, and I hate doing that. So let's break it up. Do you believe plaintiff has a SLAP tear on any shoulder?

THE WITNESS: That he ultimately had one?

THE COURT: I didn't use the word ultimately. Jesus Christ. Give me a straight answer.
Okay, before you gave your report did you have an opinion that the plaintiff had a SLAP tear on any shoulder?

THE WITNESS: Can I ask a question?

THE COURT: No.

THE WITNESS: You're not talking about related to the accident, you're just saying did he have one, so yes.

THE COURT: This is not a trick. What's so hard about my question?

THE WITNESS: I was just trying to clarify that.

THE COURT: If you stop trying to clarify and just answer direct questions you won't be here for three or four days. So, first, does plaintiff have a SLAP tear on either shoulder?

THE WITNESS: I believe so.

THE COURT: Yes? No? I don't know?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Which shoulder do you have no disagreement he has a SLAP tear on?

THE WITNESS: He had one on the right shoulder.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you believe that he had a SLAP tear on the left shoulder?

THE WITNESS: I'm not sure.

THE COURT: All right. So then you can't give an opinion on what his injury is on the left shoulder.

THE WITNESS: I didn't say that.

THE COURT: Did he have an injury of the left shoulder?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: -- that you have no confusion about?

THE WITNESS: Sure.

THE COURT: What injury did he have?

THE WITNESS: He had a tear of the labrum of the left shoulder.

The previous day, the Court allowed a voir dire on the qualifications of this witness and also asked the following:

THE COURT: I'm interested in perhaps if he's taken orthopedics.

Q Have you taken any orthopedic courses, Doctor?

A Okay, courses, or have I --

THE COURT: Courses, that's a question. Wasn't the word "course" -- did I hear the word "course"?

MS. SCANLAN: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's the question.

A Have not taken orthopedic courses?

Q You are an engineer, correct?

A I'm a mechanical engineer and a biomechanical engineer, right.

MS. SCANLAN: Your Honor, at this time I renew my application before we began his testimony. Shall I state it?

THE COURT: No. I'm just thinking. No classes in anatomy, no classes in medicine, no classes in orthopedic surgery, no classes in epidemiology, no classes in anatomy. Any classes in neurology?

THE WITNESS: No classes in neurology, no, I've -- in these fields I've only done research.

THE COURT: Hematology?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Know anything about chiropractic work?

THE WITNESS: I don't know what you mean, anything about it. Obviously, I know something about it.

THE COURT: Never studied it?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Wow. What's your objection?

MS. SCANLAN: My objection, Your Honor, is he's not qualified to testify as to mechanics of an injury without those qualifications, and I renew my application I made earlier.

THE COURT: All right. Ruling of the court is you have to ask foundational questions that permits him to offer an opinion on biomechanical injury, and I haven't heard any yet so feel free to try. Please be seated.

Appellate Courts in the area of Criminal Law have repeatedly ruled on the role of a trial judge on numerous occasions. "The proper role of a Trial Justice is "neither that of automaton nor advocate" (People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 56, 439 N.Y.S.2d 896, 422 N.E.2d 556). A Justice is generally not precluded from taking an active role in the truth-seeking process (People v. Jamison, 47 N.Y.2d 882, 883, 419 N.Y.S.2d 472, 393 N.E.2d 467) and indeed, may take the initiative to clarify confusing testimony and facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial (see, People v. Watts, 159 A.D.2d 740, 553 N.Y.S.2d 213; People v. Cooper, 96 A.D.2d 866, 465 N.Y.S.2d 755). However, this power is one that should be exercised sparingly (People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, supra, at 57, 439 N.Y.S.2d 896, 422 N.E.2d 556), and must be properly circumscribed so as not to result in the court taking an adversarial position (People v. Cooper, supra; People v. Tucker, 89 A.D.2d 153, 455 N.Y.S.2d 1). While the court may pose appropriate questions (People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 945, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892, 374 N.E.2d 1243), it has been recognized that a Justice's examination of witnesses "carries with it so many risks of unfairness that it should be a rare instance when the court, rather than counsel, examines a witness" (People v. Yut Wai Tom, supra, at 57, 439 N.Y.S.2d 896, 422 N.E.2d 556). Most importantly, when choosing to pose questions, a Justice must not do so "in a manner from which a jury will gain the impression of [the] existence of an opinion on the part of the court as to the credibility of the testimony of any witness or the merits of any issue in the case" (People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, supra, at 945, 403 N.Y.S.2d 892, 374 N.E.2d 1243). People v. Melendez, 227 A.D.2d 646, 647, 643 N.Y.S.2d 607, 607-09 (1996)"

What do you do as a trial lawyer in these circumstances? Obviously you need to protect the record, but that does not help you in front of the jury. When the Court asks a question in a certain manner or is frustrated with the response from your witness, the effect on the jury is palpable. Your witness, who you spent days preparing, can be shot down before he has a chance to give an opinion. My advice is to press on, lay the proper foundation and ask your questions as planned. As you can see from the attached transcript, Dr. Fijan was allowed to give his opinion and ultimate conclusion. How the jury felt about the comments and questioning from the Trial Court is unknown. In the end, it is for the Appellate Division to decide whether the inquiry was proper.

Read the transcript here and here.

Dr. Jeffrey Seidenberg is a Plaintiff's economist with a Ph.D. from Columbia University. When he, or any economist, takes the stand to testify for the Plaintiff, defense counsel needs a plan to cross-examine the witness. Unless his calculations have no basis in facts, e.g., they do not correlate to the published tables by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, an attack on his "numbers" will rarely make a major dent in the projected future and past economic loss. After all, if his projections show future economic loss at $4.6 million, and you are able to show the numbers are actually $3.8 million based on your calculations, what are you accomplishing? A jury is still awarding the plaintiff a multi-million dollar package.

The goal on cross examination of the Plaintiff's economist is to embarrass him. You need to show the jury this "expert" is trying to hoodwink you with his numbers and his Columbia Ph.D. You can attack the economist on his failure to reveal to the jury that an award is "free of any State or Federal taxes" and, therefore, inflated by 30% or more. Next, if the Plaintiff is receiving benefits, highlight the expert's lack of candor about the Plaintiff's current sources of income. Attack the growth rate used for future lost wages in a particular field. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics will categorize the growth rate and be the standard for reference. Attack the experts claims regarding the loss of household services. What do those numbers mean? Break it down for the jury. What exactly can this Plaintiff not do at home? The direct and cross examination of Dr. Seidenberg is attached. We ended the cross-examination with this exchange:

Q: Your calculations did not discount taxes that Mr. Rivera would be paying during the course of
those 19 years; that's a yes or no?

A: Did it take into account, no.

Q: Did you also take out of your calculations the amount that Mr. Rivera is receiving as Workers'
Comp benefits which he indicated is $3,200 a month?

A: No.

Q: Did you take out the amount of benefits Mr. Rivera is currently receiving from Social Security, an amount that he admitted this morning was over $2,000 per month?

A: No.

Q: Would your figures to this jury -- and by the way, I did the calculations on the amount of money that he would be getting, that he is currently getting, it adds up to over $65,000 per year from Workers Compensation and Social Security, would your figure to this jury have been more accurate if you
backed out the amount that he's already getting?

A: No.

Q: And you stand by that?

A: Yes.

Read the transcript here.

Dr. Lynn Mizzy Jonas is a plaintiff's Vocational Rehabilitation Expert with impressive credentials. Normally the defense calls a Vocational Rehabilitation Expert as a witness to counter the Plaintiff's claims of inability to obtain gainful employment. In a case where the Plaintiff claims total disability, the Plaintiff may call an expert to the stand to counter the expected testimony of the defendant's expert and convince the jury that the Plaintiff is, in fact, totally disabled and an award for future lost earning, up to the plaintiff's work life expectancy, is appropriate. What can the defense attorney do to cross-examine this witness?

I have attached the trial transcript of Dr. Jonas from this month's trial. In a case where the Plaintiff is a skilled laborer, performing manual labor that requires a certain skill set, the cross-examination should begin with a discussion of the Plaintiff's knowledge, skill and training. You do not need to attack the expert, but rather, convince the jury that Mr. Plaintiff has skills and knowledge that are transferable to other work, perhaps sedentary, and that he is by no means "disabled" as the expert alleges. If the Plaintiff works for a large company, discuss the regulations, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which require a company in excess of 50 employees to make reasonable accommodations for a disabled worker. Here, the Plaintiff was a Verizon Employee. On cross-examination, we were able to have the Plaintiff's own expert concede, that Verizon was annually awarded recognition for outreach and employment of "disabled" individuals. Total disability as a conceptual label can be effectively debunked. You do not need to paint the Plaintiff as a malingerer. Rather, if the jury believes the Plaintiff fails to accept his current status and use the gifts and skills he has to find work, you have done your job on cross. You can weave this issue into the theme you develop for the trial, namely, the Plaintiff's claims are exaggerated and false. Presenting an expert that will testify that the Plaintiff is "totally disabled" can backfire. I have attached the direct and cross examination of this witness for illustration. Read the transcript here.