Without a way to consolidate cases outside of plaintiff-friendly California, the defense bar will now have one less option in battling these claims. Importantly, and especially with product liability mass torts, the science will become more central to these claims as the parties will engage in a “battle of the experts” subject to the Kelly/Frye admissibility threshold (which some argue has become more Daubert-like after Sargon). Indeed, expert admissibility could become the next “dispositive” blow the defense will use to quash these claims. For plaintiffs and defendants alike, the general causation question will be even more critical to success.
Peer Review can have tremendous value for private business by improving the accuracy of key input analysis. The process can also have value as a sharpened predictive tool whereby decision makers who might rely upon inaccurate or un-vetted analysis can avoid bad choices. In these applications, improved decision-making is the goal, not simply publication.
If you’ve been litigating for any amount of significant time, you probably know this feeling: you and your team have prepared your arguments, worked with witnesses and reviewed evidence, and spent enough time internally going over the merits of your case, that you’re near sure you have a bulletproof case. Only to find that it all goes down in flames at summary judgment or in front of a jury.
One of the most debilitating and demoralizing losses a litigating party can suffer is having its expert witness “fail” a Daubert challenge, and thus have that expert witnesses’ testimony and reports be deemed inadmissible at trial.
In late April, Missouri legislators approved a bill that would it make more difficult for expert witnesses in Missouri state court trials to be allowed to testify. The bill, passed 85-68 by the Republican-controlled House, would change the requirements for expert testimony to be admissible by requiring a judge to determine that the testimony is: