**Stephen B. Levine, M.D.** presents a significant intelligence gap for plaintiff attorneys, as his credentials, institutional affiliation, and specific medical specialty remain undocumented despite appearing as an expert witness. His limited case history shows exclusive defense-side work in the 3M Combat Arms Earplug litigation, specifically in *DEKKER v. HARRIS* in the Northern District of Florida (September 2022). This narrow exposure suggests he may be a newer addition to the defense expert roster or operates within a very specific niche related to hearing loss, audiology, or military equipment safety. Without visible credentials or academic backing, his qualifications as a medical expert are immediately questionable and represent a primary vulnerability. Levine's courtroom track record is both limited and concerning from a reliability standpoint. With only one documented case appearance (though listed twice in the same matter), he lacks the extensive testimonial experience that typically characterizes established expert witnesses. The pending Daubert challenge in *DEKKER v. HARRIS* with unknown outcome creates additional uncertainty about his admissibility standards. His exclusive defense orientation in 3M earplug cases suggests potential industry ties or specialized opinions favorable to product manufacturers, but the absence of discoverable credentials raises serious questions about whether he meets basic qualification thresholds under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. For plaintiff attorneys, Levine represents a high-value Daubert target due to his undocumented qualifications and limited testimonial foundation. The lack of visible medical credentials, institutional affiliation, or published expertise creates multiple attack vectors for exclusion motions focusing on qualification deficiencies under *Daubert's* reliability standards. If opposing Levine, aggressive credential discovery and methodology challenges should be prioritized, as his thin documentation suggests potential admissibility problems. Plaintiff counsel should avoid retaining Levine given his defense-only history, questionable credentials, and the reputational risks associated with an expert whose qualifications cannot be readily verified or defended.
Free during beta. Your inquiry will be sent to MTAA and the expert if they've claimed their profile.
We'll send a verification link to your email. Once verified you can add contact info, bio, and availability.