Showing results 1-7 of 7.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"In many of the decisions in which a differential diagnosis has been deemed reliable, the party relying on the diagnosis has offered independently reliable evidence that the allegedly dangerous drug or substance had harmful effects."

  Goebel v. Denver and Rio Grande Western R. Co. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 10/9/2003
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Though the review was for plain error due to a belated Daubert objection, in Macsenti v. Becker, 237 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir.2001), this court upheld the use of an expert's opinion of brain injury from diffusion hypoxia where the plaintiff had been administered multiple drugs in combination with nitrous oxide. ... Regardless of the specific factors at issue, the purpose of the Daubert inquiry is always "to make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field."

Cited 84 times
Mountaineering and health Physiology Medical terminology Blood Building materials 

  Christian v. Gray - OK

Decided: 2/24/2003

¶ 47 In State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659, 663, we stated that because our appellate review used an abuse of discretion standard, 610*610 the trial court should set forth with specificity those facts found and used to support the court's order. When a trial court applies Daubert and determines that a particular method is required for the admissibility of a particular expert's conclusions the order should state those facts that the trial court relied upon in making that determination. ... The four non-exhaustive Daubert factors: (1) Can, or has, the expert's method been tested; (2) Has the expert's method been subjected to peer review and publication, (3) Is there a known or potential rate of error and the existence of standards controlling the method, and (4) Is there widespread acceptance of the method within the relevant community of experts— all involve determination of facts.

Cited 17 times

  Huerta v. BioSCRIP PHARMACY SERVICES, INC. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 7/12/2011
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The district court struck portions of the testimony of Huerta's four experts, Dr. Craig Wong, Dr. Steven Alexander, Dr. Bruce Morgenstern, and Dr. Randall Tackett, as unreliable and therefore inadmissible under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.[4] ... Our court has previously stated that "[t]o be reliable under Daubert, an expert's scientific testimony must be based on scientific knowledge . . . and not mere `subjective belief or unsupported speculation.'"

Cited 0 times
Immunosuppressants Medical terminology Organ transplantation Transplantation medicine 

  IN RE GADOLINIUM-BASED CONTRAST AGENTS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION - 6th Circuit

Decided: 5/4/2010

The free gadolinium theory passes reliability muster under Daubert because it is based on research conducted by scientists and doctors performing animal studies, in vitro studies, in vivo studies, human clinical studies and retrospective case studies along with review of the relevant published scientific and medical studies; the theory has been subjected to publication and peer review; the theory has been generally accepted in the relevant scientific and medical community; the Plaintiffs' experts have adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations; and the research of Plaintiffs' experts relates not only to their review of the literature but to matters growing naturally or necessarily out of research they have conducted independent of this litigation. ... In Daubert, the Supreme Court set forth a non-exhaustive list for trial courts to consider in assessing the reliability of expert testimony, including: (1) whether the expert's theory can be or has been tested, (2) whether the expert's theory has been subject to peer review and publication, and (3) whether the expert's theory has been generally accepted in the relevant scientific, technical, or professional community.

Cited 0 times

  Twyman v. GHK CORP. - OK

Decided: 6/7/2004

GHK and Mobil, in separate but substantively similar briefs, first argue they were entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the trial court erred in admitting expert scientific testimony on causation[4] which failed to meet the reliability standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)(hereafter Daubert). ... ¶ 17 In Christian, at 612, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined Daubert would be the evidentiary standard in the matter before it and remanded it to the trial court to allow the parties to present evidence in support of and in opposition to the reliability of the offered expert evidence.

Cited 0 times

  IN RE ZOLOFT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 4/5/2016

Plaintiffs argue that Pfizer was on notice that the experts would submit declarations specific to the Long and Goulet cases in opposition to summary judgment, and that a Daubert challenge could have been raised then, and that the submissions do not contravene the parties' Court-approved stipulation. ... The schedule included discovery from Pfizer, the exchange of expert reports regarding general causation and hearings as to the admissibility of the expert testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.[6]

Cited 0 times

  IN RE ZOLOFT (SERTRALINE HYDROCHLORIDE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 4/6/2016

Plaintiffs argue that Pfizer was on notice that the experts would submit declarations specific to the Long and Goulet cases in opposition to summary judgment, and that a Daubert challenge could have been raised then, and that the submissions do not contravene the parties' Court-approved stipulation. ... The schedule included discovery from Pfizer, the exchange of expert reports regarding general causation and hearings as to the admissibility of the expert testimony pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.[6]

Cited 0 times