Showing results 1-4 of 4.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Although the court concluded "that Hopkins' experts based their opinions on the types of scientific data and utilized the types of scientific techniques relied upon by medical experts in making determinations regarding toxic causation where there is no solid body of epidemiological data to review," id. at 1124, this data was collective and included: toxicological experience; reviews of medical records;"

  In re Silicone Gel Breast Impl. Prod. Liab. Lit. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 4/22/2004

Since there is no reason to believe that the "principles and methodology," Daubert I, supra, at 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786, employed in the Hueper and Autian studies were flawed, contrary studies are not a reason to preclude Lappe from relying on them. Daubert II, supra, at 1319 n. 11 (stating that Daubert does not require a majority of the scientific community to agree with the proposed expert's theory or methodology; "methods accepted by a minority ... may well be sufficient."). ... In Daubert I, the Supreme Court articulated the following factors that bear on the reliability inquiry: (1) whether the theory or technique used by the expert can be or has been tested, (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication, (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied, and (4) the "general acceptance" of the theory or technique in the scientific community.

Cited 25 times

  Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation - MA

Decided: 7/16/1998

The record prepared on the motions included references to medical and scientific publications, affidavits expressing the views of experts, and the transcript of a four-day evidentiary hearing, 9*9 held in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon,[7] pursuant to the Daubert decisions,[8] on defense motions in limine in several consolidated products liability actions to exclude expert testimony offered by the plaintiffs on causation issues relating to alleged injuries claimed from silicone breast implants. ... This issue had been discussed in detail at the Daubert hearing, held by the Federal District Court in Oregon, by expert witnesses who both opposed and supported the scientific reliability of Dr. Garrido's research.

Cited 10 times

  Minnesota Min. and Mfg. Co. v. Atterbury - TX

Decided: 7/31/1998

However, in determining whether an expert's testimony is scientifically reliable, an appellate court must necessarily look beyond any magic words and look at the numerous factors that have been developed in Daubert, Robinson, and Havner. ... The trial court excluded the plaintiff's experts based on Daubert and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Cited 6 times

  IN RE SILICONE GEL BREASTS IMPLANTS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION - 9th Circuit

Decided: 4/22/2004

Since there is no reason to believe that the "principles and methodology," Daubert I, supra, at 595, employed in the Hueper and Autian studies were flawed, contrary studies are not a reason to preclude Lappé from relying on them. Daubert II, supra, at 1319 n.11 (stating that Daubert does not require a majority of the scientific community to agree with the proposed expert's theory or methodology; "methods accepted by a minority . .. may well be sufficient."). ... In Daubert I, the Supreme Court articulated the following factors that bear on the reliability inquiry: (1) whether the theory or technique used by the expert can be or has been tested, (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication, (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied, and (4) the "general acceptance" of the theory or technique in the scientific community.

Cited 0 times