In a personal injury case where the plaintiff’s experts diverge on an injured man’s ability to return to work, the defendant unsuccessfully tried to convince the judge that some of those opinions should be excluded.

U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rejected defendant Regal Ideas Inc.’s motion to exclude to testimony from two of plaintiff Jonathan Malcolm’s experts despite allegedly contradictory testimony, reasoning that differing opinions by experts in different fields aren’t mutually exclusive in the case.