Success with AMFS: How Medical Expert Testimony Influenced Case Outcomes

Medical expert witnesses help clarify complex scientific or medical issues for judges and juries, establish causation or damages, and can make the difference between winning big, limiting liability, or even getting a case dismissed.

That’s why it’s vital for legal teams to be matched with an expert that not only has the right credentials, but one that has the correct clinical experience and ability to clearly explain complicated issues to a layperson.

Let’s explore three real-life cases from AMFS where medical expert witness testimony was critical to the outcome.

Case 1: Ellis, et al. v. DePuy, et al.

Case Overview: The plaintiffs alleged that a DePuy metal hip implant (the ASR XL) caused metal poisoning, pain, and subsequent damage that required removal and replacement.

AMFS Expert: Dr. Craig Swenson, orthopedic surgeon, testifying for the plaintiff.

Dr. Swenson offered detailed testimony on the pathology of failed DePuy ASR XL metal hip implants and described in detail the pathological findings of hip implant failure with accompanying visuals. He also addressed the importance of early detection to preserve soft tissues and function, and how delay can lead to worse outcomes.

Most importantly, Dr. Swenson testified to failure-rate data from his own practice where 38% of implantations required removal or were awaiting revision.

Dr. Swenson’s impact was three-fold:

• Visuals provided during testimony made abstract medical damage more vivid and understandable to the jurors.
• Failure-rate data undercut any defense that these were isolated incidents.
• Bridged the gap between clinical findings and legal liability by correlating early vs. late detection to long-term patient outcomes.

Outcome: Jury verdict of $8.34 million for the plaintiffs.

Watch Dr. Swenson’s testimony.

Case 2: Rojas v. Hajoca Corp.

Case Overview: A motorcyclist lost his leg in an accident, and the case considered not only the physical injuries but the psychological impact of the injury.

AMFS Expert: Dr. Lester Zackler, a psychiatrist, testifying for the plaintiff.

Dr. Zackler provided an overview of the plaintiff’s physical diagnosis, then a detailed psychiatric diagnosis including PTSD, depression, anxiety, and the psychological cycles of grief. He explained in detail how these conditions altered the plaintiff’s identity, family role, and future earning potential.

Dr. Zackler’s testimony:

• Tied psychological loss to life‐changes: mobility, role in family, loss of control, threats to self‐concept and relationships.
• Explained how psychological conditions affect the individual over time.
• Detailed how persistent stressors (i.e. loss of limb) can prevent resolution, impact personal identity, familial roles, and marriage.

Dr. Zackler provided a framework for connecting psychiatric conditions to compensable harm and made it clear that compensation needed to reflect more than immediate physical injury—it had to address life’s trajectory. By articulating how psychological injuries compound physical ones, Dr. Zacklet supplied the court with a rationale for significant damages, without appearing speculative.

Outcome: Plaintiff awarded $23.8 million.

Watch Dr. Zackler’s testimony. 

Case #3: Hackimer v. R.J. Reynolds

Case Overview: The plaintiff claimed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) caused by smoking and alleged the tobacco company was responsible. Among the issues present to the court was whether the disease onset was within the statute of limitations.

AMFS Expert: Dr. William Klein, pulmonologist, testifying for the defense.

In his testimony, Dr. Klein explained to the court how COPD progresses slowly over decades, often with stage 1 or mild disease going unnoticed by the patient. He described the Gold Criteria for diagnosing the four stages of COPD, what symptoms typically appear in each stage, and how lung function declines naturally with age vs more rapidly for smokers.

Dr. Klein also included:

• Specific evidence that in the late 1970s or early 1980s, the plaintiff was already showing signs of COPD, placing the onset of disease before the relevant filing window.
• Visual aides to create a clear, accessible explanations of how disease evolution influences legal timing, and why the claim was time-barred.

Dr. Klein’s testimony reframed the case from a question of liability to a procedural bar. His accessible explanation of disease progression allowed the jury to understand why the claim was untimely.

The Outcome: Ruling in the defense’s favor.

The Overall Impact of Medical Expert Witness Testimony

The most effective experts not only understand their medical field, but also how their testimony intersects with causation, damages, and procedural law. They often play a pivotal role in shaping litigation strategy and determining case outcomes.

That’s why services like AMFS aren’t just a convenience; they’re a strategic advantage in today’s increasingly complex litigation landscape. Start your partnership with AMFS today by requesting a free case consultation with one of our Physician Medical Directors.