Showing results 1-5 of 5.
Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Conde v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 804 F.Supp. 972, 1025-26 (S.D.Ohio 1992) ("[e]pidemiologic studies are the primary generally accepted methodology for demonstrating a causal relation between a chemical compound and a set of symptoms or a disease"), aff'd, 24 F.3d 809 (6th Cir.1994);"
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.
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standards for admissibility because Plaintiffs' experts (1) have failed to provide any evidence, either published or unpublished, that Parlodel® increases one's risk of stroke; (2) rely on uncontrolled and unreliable spontaneous reports and anecdotal case reports as the basis for their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.
The Supreme Court in Daubert stated that Rule 702 required the district court to perform a "gate-keeping function" before admitting expert scientific testimony, to ensure that it is not only relevant, but reliable. ... "Under the Daubert standard, epidemiological studies are not necessarily required to prove causation, as long as the methodology employed by the expert in reaching his or her conclusion is sound."
LEXIS 5984, at * 4 805*805 (6th Cir. Mar. 30, 1999) ("We have said that if a trial court allows an expert to testify beyond her expertise it failed to perform its gatekeeping function under the Daubert case."). ... In particular, the Daubert Court addressed whether the district court erred in excluding certain expert testimony because the experts did not offer epidemiological evidence to establish that the drug Bendectin caused birth defects.
The admissibility of expert testimony in federal court proceedings is governed by FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 702, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) which requires that the trial judge perform a gatekeeping function with respect to expert testimony. ... Daubert first "directs the district court to determine whether the expert's testimony pertains to scientific knowledge.