The first reported appellate decision to cite the new Rule 702 changes has appeared, but there’s no sea change to report. In fact, while the court cited the new Rule 702, it followed the old rules in making its decision about the expert’s testimony. The case involved a medical expert, but they’re in the same 702 boat as valuation and forensics experts, so the case (in the 1st Circuit) is notable.

In a blog post, BVLaw editor Jim Alerding takes a look at the case and refers readers to an article that goes into greater detail and aptly uses the phrase “old habits die hard.” The article notes that the ruling did not result in a “critical blow,” so hopefully the “incorrect” precedent it set will not affect future cases. Stay tuned!

The case is Rodriguez v. Hosp. San Cristobal, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1301; 91 F.4th 59; 2024 WL 207717, and a case digest and full opinion are available on the BVLaw platform.