Showing results 1-2 of 2.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"The Texas Supreme Court has stated, "an expert's assertion that a physical examination confirmed causation should not be accepted at face value.""

  Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 3/28/2005

In addition, the Court has reviewed voluminous additional material submitted by both sides, including but not limited to, Defendants' Memorandum of Science and 816*816 Law in Support of Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony (docket no. 198), both sides' responses to the questions posed by the Court at the December 2003 status conference (including two volumes of appendices filed by Plaintiffs), submissions filed after the Daubert hearings, and the various other motions and affidavits filed by the parties. ... In the case of a plaintiff with lung cancer who was exposed to 1 mrem of radiation above background (which Dr. Dollinger testified would be a substantial contributing factor) and who also smoked heavily, Daubert and Havner would require more of an expert witness than simply saying that the 1 mrem of radiation was a substantial contributing factor because most smokers do not get lung cancer, given that we are all exposed to radiation daily, yet most people do not get cancer.

Cited 12 times

  Coastal Tankships, USA, Inc. v. Anderson - TX

Decided: 5/31/2002

Due to the confusion regarding the appropriate way to analyze the reliability of the expert opinion in this case and the application of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and its Texas progeny, a thorough review of the facts of this case and the applicable case law is necessary. ... App.1992),[13] the Texas Court of Criminal 599*599 Appeals embraced Daubert in reversing and remanding an appellate court decision that upheld the exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification.

Cited 10 times