Showing results 1-6 of 6.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Similarly, case reports and case studies are universally regarded as an insufficient scientific basis for a conclusion regarding causation because case reports lack controls."

  Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 8/18/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

While meticulous Daubert inquiries may bring judges under criticism for donning white coats and making determinations that are outside their field of expertise, the Supreme Court has obviously deemed this less objectionable than dumping a barrage of questionable scientific evidence on a jury, who would likely be even less equipped than the judge to make reliability and relevance determinations and more likely than the judge to be awestruck by the expert's mystique. ... Some judges, noting the general complexity of some expert evidence and in the penultimate exercise of caution and conscience, have exercised their inherent authority to use outside experts and have engaged in elaborate Daubert inquiries in 1311*1311 an effort to sort out conflicting scientific opinions in a comprehensive search for reliability and relevance.

Cited 419 times
Rheumatology Autoimmune diseases Implants (medicine) Anatomical pathology Medical terminology 

  In re Breast Implant Litigation - 10th Circuit

Decided: 6/3/1998

Pursuant to Rules 702, and 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and as outlined in Daubert, 509 U.S. at 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, and its progeny, Plaintiffs Zelinger and Roberts, as the proponents of the expert testimony, have failed to meet their burden of proof of establishing that the opinions of Drs. Kassan, Klapper, Hoffman, Guidoin, and Blais: (1) are based on valid, scientific principles and reliable scientific methods, processes, reasoning, and data; (2) are based upon data reasonably relied upon by experts in the field, and (3) would assist the trier of fact in resolving a factual dispute in these actions. ... Daubert sets forth several non-exhaustive factors to assist trial courts in determining whether a theory or technique constitutes "scientific knowledge" within the meaning of Rule 702, including whether the methodology, principles and reasoning underlying the proposed experts' opinions: (1) can be and have been empirically tested; (2) have been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) have a known or potential rate of error; and (4) have gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.

Cited 80 times

  Soldo v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 1/13/2003

Ruffin v. Shaw Indus., 149 F.3d 294, 297 (4th Cir.1998) (affirming the district court's exclusion of causation testimony where animal studies allegedly showed that the product at issue caused adverse effects in mice, but results could not be replicated); Allen v. Pennsylvania Eng'g Corp., 102 F.3d 194, 195 (5th Cir. 1996) ("Where, as here, no epidemiological study has found a statistically-significant link between EtO exposure and human brain cancer; the results of animal studies are inconclusive at best; and there was no evidence of the level of [plaintiffs] exposure to EtO, the expert testimony does not exhibit the level of reliability necessary to comport with the Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, ... Daubert ... and this court's authorities"); ... Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), a two-step analysis is used to assess the admissibility of the proffered expert testimony on scientific issues under Rule 702. 527*527 First, the expert testimony must be reliable, so that it must be "scientific," meaning grounded in the methods and procedures of science, and must constitute "knowledge," meaning something more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.

Cited 41 times

  Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC - PA

Decided: 5/23/2012

In general, consistent with the testimony of Drs. Paustenbach and Teta, Appellants maintain that the any-exposure opinion remains a hypothesis or assumption, accord, e.g., Whiting v. Boston Edison Co., 891 F.Supp. 12, 24 (D.Mass.1995) (rejecting expert's "non-threshold" theory as an unverifiable hypothesis which was incapable of assisting a jury in resolving the ultimate issue of disease causation), while stressing Dr. Maddox's inability to identify any peer-reviewed scientific support undergirding the opinion. ... In their view, the notion that courts have no screening function "is at odds with the last 17 years of federal court evidence law, just as it was at odds with most federal circuits at the time it was written, and with states that have adopted Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993),] and those that adhere to Frye."

Cited 37 times

  Siharath v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 3/1/2001

The Supreme Court in Daubert explained that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 allows the admission of expert testimony only if: (1) the expert is competent and qualified to testify regarding the matters that he intends to address; (2) the methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable; and (3) the expert, through scientific, technical or specialized expertise, provides testimony that assists the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. ... Defendant contends that Plaintiffs' experts' testimony fails to meet the Daubert standards for admissibility because Plaintiffs' experts (1) have failed to provide any evidence, either published or unpublished, that Parlodel® increases one's risk of stroke; (2) rely on uncontrolled and unreliable spontaneous reports and anecdotal case reports as the basis for their opinions; and (3) cannot show that their opinions have an acceptable error rate or are otherwise generally accepted.

Cited 36 times

  Newton v. Roche Laboratories, Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 12/5/2002

In the October 15, 2002 Daubert hearing, Defendants' testifying expert, Dr. Lorraine Gudas,[8] found O'Donnell's research to be "shockingly unscientific" because, in manufacturing his report, he ignored "hundreds of [sic][9] thousands of peer-reviewed articles" that demonstrate "no link between Vitamin A and schizophrenia." ... If the trial court determines that the expert is qualified in the relevant field, then the court must exercise its gate-keeper function as provided in Daubert and Kumho Tire.

Cited 18 times