Showing results 1-1 of 1.
Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Dr. Shanklin's causation testimony was deficient perhaps most tellingly insofar as his theory relied on case reports suggesting a connection between silica and scleroderma, even though he did not purport to find support for such a connection in the epidemiological studies, thus creating an analytical gap between the data and his opinion that "is simply too great.""
The court therefore cannot evaluate Mr. Feingersh's reliability based on such Daubert factors as "whether the expert's technique or theory can be or has been tested" or "whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication" because of the apparent lack of information on the subject. ... The Supreme Court has recognized that "the factors identified in Daubert may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert's particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony."