In a civil jury trial arising from explosion-related burn injuries, the defendants moved to disqualify the plaintiffs' proposed expert on the basis of bias, advocacy, speculation, and opinions outside his expertise.
Applying the governing admissibility framework for expert independence, the court held that the reports demonstrated advocacy and objectionable inflammatory language, but the substance of the expert's opinions within his actual expertise was not so tainted as to be of minimal or no assistance.
The court therefore declined to exclude the evidence.
The expert was permitted to testify only within his area of expertise and subject to detailed restrictions on language, factual assumptions, and speculation.
