Showing results 1-10 of 357.

Cases that cite: Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp.

  US v. Frazier - 11th Circuit

Decided: 10/15/2004
District Court Decision: Excluded In Part, Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Daubert, the Supreme Court suggested that a trial court assessing the reliability of proposed scientific testimony might consider, among others, the following factors: (1) whether the theory or technique underpinning the expert's opinion "can be (or has been) tested"; (2) whether the theory or technique "has been subjected to peer review and publication"; (3) whether, with respect to particular theory or technique, there is a high "known or potential rate of error," and whether there are "standards controlling the technique's operation"; and (4) whether the theory or technique enjoys "general acceptance" within the "relevant scientific community." ... In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Supreme Court "assign[ed] to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand."

Cited 419 times
Heuristics Applied sciences Rape Retailing Secondary sexual characteristics 

  Rink v. Cheminova, Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 2/24/2005
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The district court granted summary judgment to the manufacturer of the substance and its related entities following the court's exclusion of expert testimony under the principles of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... In ascertaining reliability under the second Daubert prong, we have identified several factors which can be considered: (1) whether the expert's methodology can be tested; (2) whether the expert's scientific technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) whether the method has a known rate of error; (4) whether the technique is generally accepted by the scientific community.

Cited 181 times
Medical terminology Invasive insect species Beekeeping Bees 

  McCorvey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 7/24/2002
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In deciding whether these requirements of Rule 702 are met, Daubert instructs courts to consider the following factors: (1) whether the expert's theory can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the particular scientific technique; and (4) whether the technique is generally accepted in the scientific community. ... Recognizing that our review of evidentiary rulings by trial courts on the admission of expert testimony is "very limited," id. at 662, we do not find reversible error in the district court's conclusion that McCorvey did not meet this burden, and that his proffered engineering expert's methodology was not sufficiently reliable under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

Cited 162 times
Urology Medical specialties Medical doctors by specialty Surgical specialties Firearm maintenance 

  US v. Brown - 11th Circuit

Decided: 7/8/2005
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Some of them involve Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and question the district court's rulings on the admission of expert testimony. ... All of this explains why "the task of evaluating the reliability of expert testimony is uniquely entrusted to the district court under Daubert," and why "we give the district court `considerable leeway' in the execution of its duty."

Cited 130 times
Chemical properties Science occupations 

  McDowell v. Brown - 11th Circuit

Decided: 12/8/2004
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Daubert's reliability prong sets out four guideposts that a district court may consider in assessing the reliability of the expert testimony, which include, but are not limited to: (1) whether the expert's methodology has been tested or is capable of being tested; (2) whether the technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known and potential error rate of the methodology; and (4) whether the technique has been generally accepted in the proper scientific community. ... Daubert put forth a two-pronged analysis, used to determine the admissibility of the proffered expert testimony on scientific issues under Rule 702.

Cited 108 times
Medical doctors by specialty Medical specialties Spinal cord General surgery Emergency medicine 

  Rider v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 6/24/2002
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The district court held that the plaintiffs' expert testimony was not sufficiently reliable 1196*1196 to meet the standards established by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and granted summary judgment in favor of Sandoz. ... We have reviewed the opinion, noted a problem or two with the opinion itself, considered the arguments in the briefs of both appellants and amici, and reviewed the record, and conclude that under an unmodified application of the Daubert trilogy, a proper consideration of every piece of evidence offered, and a study of the expert opinions themselves, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the admission of the testimony of the five expert witnesses offered by the plaintiffs to prove causation in this case.

Cited 83 times
Cardiovascular physiology Stroke Concepts in epistemology 

  Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 12/13/2007

The specific factors explicated by the Daubert Court are (1) whether the expert's technique or theory can be or has been tested — that is, whether the expert's theory can be challenged in some objective sense, or whether it is instead simply a subjective, conclusory approach that cannot reasonably be assessed for reliability; (2) whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied and the existence and maintenance of standards and controls that govern the application of the expert's process; and (4) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the relevant community of experts. 509 U.S. at 592-94, 113 580*580 S.Ct. 2786. ... But we also know that the gatekeeper function imposed by Daubert and Rule 702 requires the proponent to prove that its expert has used reliable methods in a reliable manner; that experts are not allowed to testify on matters that are left for the jury; that an expert's testimony must fit the substantive law and the facts of the case; that experts qualified in one area are not permitted to testify on other subject matter for which they are not qualified; and that questions of weight, when sufficiently accumulated, become so serious as to require exclusion.

Cited 65 times

  Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 8/12/2010
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The Plaintiff, Douglas Kilpatrick, claiming to have been injured by one of Breg's pumps, proffered a single expert witness on the issue of causation — Dr. Gary Poehling, M.D. The district court determined that the methodology used by Dr. Poehling to reach his conclusions was unreliable and, therefore, his testimony was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... "Because the task of evaluating the reliability of expert testimony is uniquely entrusted to the district court under Daubert ... we give the district court `considerable leeway' in the execution of its duty."

Cited 60 times
Orthopedic surgical procedures Skeletal system Joints Endoscopy Occupational diseases 

  Cooper v. Carl A. Nelson & Co. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 3/7/2000
Amended: 6/1/2000
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

The district court, attempting to fulfill the mandate of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), essentially identified four issues that it believed needed to be resolved before Dr. Richardson's testimony could be admitted. ... After a hearing to determine the admissibility of this testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the district court decided that the testimony was not admissible because the physicians had an inadequate foundation for evaluating the cause of Mr. Cooper's injury.

Cited 52 times
Medical terminology 

  Guinn v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP - 11th Circuit

Decided: 4/6/2010
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Not only does this cast doubt on Dr. Marks' differential diagnosis, but it also violates a primary purpose of Daubert: to ensure the expert "employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field." ... Prior to trial, AstraZeneca filed a Daubert motion for the exclusion of the expert testimony of Dr. Jennifer Marks and a motion for summary judgment.

Cited 46 times
Diabetes Logic Smoking cessation Drug rehabilitation Psychoactive drugs