Showing results 1-5 of 5.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Generally, the district court should focus on the experts' methodology rather than the conclusions that they generate."

  Etherton v. Owners Ins. Co. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 3/31/2014

Unlike the challenged experts in Huerta v. BioScrip Pharmacy Servs., Inc., 429 Fed.Appx. 768, 774, 776 (10th Cir. 2011), Dr. Ramos did not rely on information that later proved incorrect or base his conclusion solely on his personal knowledge of the plaintiff. ... Defendant relies in part on Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., 613 F.3d 1329, 1336 (11th Cir. 2010), for the proposition that it is "necessary" for a district court to review the medical literature that an expert relies on and not merely "rubber stamp the opinions of expert witnesses once they are determined to be an expert."

Cited 3 times

  Nelson v. Enid Medical Associates, Inc. - OK

Decided: 6/14/2016

¶ 12 In summary, we use a nondeferential appellate standard and review de novo a trial court's order granting summary judgment, and we use a nondeferential appellate standard and review de novo a trial court's Daubert order which determines the lack of facts supporting the reliability of a particular expert's opinion for the purpose of admission at trial. ... When an external agent is the alleged cause of injury, an expert witness typically "demonstrate[s] that the medical and scientific literature provides evidence that in some circumstances the exposure under consideration can cause the outcome under consideration," (thus showing general causation);[32] and the next step is to "apply this general knowledge to the specific circumstances of the case at hand, incorporating the specifics of exposure, mitigating or exacerbating influences, individual susceptibilities, competing or synergistic causes, and any other relevant data."[33]

Cited 0 times

  Etherton v. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY - 10th Circuit

Decided: 3/31/2014

Unlike the challenged experts in Huerta v. BioScrip Pharmacy Servs., Inc., 429 F. App'x 768, 774, 776 (10th Cir. 2011), Dr. Ramos did not rely on information that later proved incorrect or base his conclusion solely on his personal knowledge of the plaintiff. ... Defendant relies in part on Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., 613 F.3d 1329, 1336 (11th Cir. 2010), for the proposition that it is "necessary" for a district court to review the medical literature that an expert relies on and not merely "rubber stamp the opinions of expert witnesses once they are determined to be an expert."

Cited 0 times

  Baca v. Clark - 10th Circuit

Decided: 7/9/2007

This matter is before the court on three motions, all filed December 18, 2006: (1) "Action's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff;" (2) "Action's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Clark and Depot Sales;" and (3) "Plaintiff's Request for a Daubert Hearing Regarding Certain Opinions Expressed by Defense Experts James P. Kelly, M.D. and Kevin J. Reilly, Psy.D." Jurisdiction is premised upon 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 (West 2007), diversity of citizenship. ... Also on December 18, 2006, Plaintiff moved for a Daubert hearing regarding the testimony of two expert witnesses retained by Defendant Action. (Pl.'s Request for a Daubert Hr'g Regarding Certain Opinions Expressed by Defense Experts James P. Kelly, M.D. and Kevin J. Reilly, Psy.D. [filed Dec. 18, 2006] [hereinafter "Pl.'s Br."].)

Cited 0 times

  Borel v. TREK BICYCLE CORPORATION - 10th Circuit

Decided: 7/1/2010

While the Court does not disagree that Dr. Jacobson's background allows him to provide educated opinions, this is not nearly enough to rise to the level required by Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert to allow these opinions be accepted as expert testimony during trial. ... Fundamentally, then, the purpose of the Daubert inquiry is to assure that a trial expert adheres to "the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field."[11]

Cited 0 times