When the individual is indirectly involved in litigation

At times, an individual expert witness will be a part of an organization, group or company, and would be named in a court document in the capacity of an officer of such an organization. The litigant (entity involved in a lawsuit) would be the company and not the expert themselves. 

These cases may look like they do not belong to "Personal Litigation History" since the section has the word personal in it. In such cases, the following points need to be kept in mind: 

1. The expert was not involved in these cases as an expert witness.
2. The expert was an officer of the company that was involved in the case as a litigant. 
3. Just because the company is a separate legal entity, it does not mean that the individual officers have no role to play when the entity gets sued. It is the individuals whose actions cause litigation. 

Therefore, such cases will be added to "Personal Litigation History" section of the report. 

However, it is really important to clarify this situation in the "Summary of Involvement" since the expert's name will not be in the case caption and the customer can get confused as to why a case has been put under Personal Litigation History when the expert's name is not under Plaintiffs or Defendants.

 

Example Scenarios: 

Hanks v. Aminokit Labs., No. 17-cv-01108-RM-MJW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240000 (D. Colo. Feb. 7, 2018)

We came across this case while researching Dr. David Samuel Markenson M.D., M.B.A.

In this case, HCA-Healthone, LLC ("HCA") was a named Defendant and was doing business as Sky Ridge Medical Center. The expert, David Markenson, was the Chief Medical Officer at Sky Ridge. The relevant text of the opinion (linked above) was: 

On August 15, 2013, Tarrant forwarded the lease request to HCA's Chief Medical Officer, David Markenson ("Markenson") and director of case management, Kimberly Mayton ("Mayton"), asking Markenson to perform clinical research on Aminokit. (Id at ¶¶ 37-38.)

Markensonwas in charge of HCA's medical staff office and had access to specialized databases containing information regarding licensure and litigation history. (Id. at ¶ 39.) Markenson also had access to medical databases, allowing him to research the types of treatments Aminokit performed to determine whether the treatments were safe, effective, or approved by the Federal Drug Administration ("the FDA"). (Id. at ¶ 40.) At this time, easily accessible databases would have revealed that Sisco's license had been revoked, Sisco was subject to an injunction [*8]  against her practicing medicine, and Aminokit was not licensed to provide residential, inpatient, or medical detoxification services. (Id. at ¶ 41.) Easily accessible databases would also have revealed that Aminokit's primary treatment modality, "IV amino acids," were not scientifically proven as safe or effective for the treatment of addiction. (Id. at ¶ 42.) Mayton also conducted a "google" search of Aminokit and spoke to Sisco about Aminokit's services. (Id. at ¶ 43.) From the research Markenson and Mayton performed, HCA should have known that: Aminokit was not licensed to perform residential or inpatient addiction treatment or medical detoxification; Aminokit's staff was mostly unlicensed, Sisco was not licensed in any profession, Sisco's chiropractic license had been revoked for fraudulently holding herself out as a doctor; Sisco's acupuncture license had been revoked; and a "Denver District Court judge" had entered an injunction against Sisco for fraudulently holding herself out as a doctor. (Id. at ¶ 44.)

As we can clearly see, Markenson has not been directly sued in this case. However, since he was an officer of the company that was sued, and he has been mentioned in a court document for playing an active role in the cause of action, we will add this case to the Personal Litigation History section. 

We will note the following Summary of Involvement to ensure that it is clear to the customer: 

David Markenson was the Chief Medical Officer of HCA-Healthone, LLC, doing business as Sky Ridge Medical Center. HCA-Healthone was a named defendant in this case and Markenson's involvement was in the capacity of being an executive of HCA-Healthone.