Showing results 1-10 of 10.

Cases that cite: Hollander v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.

  In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 3/14/2005

In Daubert, the Supreme Court articulated four pertinent factors while leaving open the possibility of others: (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;" and (4) whether the theory has "widespread acceptance."[136] ... Finally, the court found that the expert's novel theory of causation — which the expert admitted was "the product of his own `background experience and reading'"[153] — failed the Daubert test because it had not been tested or subjected to peer review, there was no known error rate, and it was not generally accepted.[154]

Cited 45 times

  Christian v. Gray - OK

Decided: 2/24/2003

¶ 47 In State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659, 663, we stated that because our appellate review used an abuse of discretion standard, 610*610 the trial court should set forth with specificity those facts found and used to support the court's order. When a trial court applies Daubert and determines that a particular method is required for the admissibility of a particular expert's conclusions the order should state those facts that the trial court relied upon in making that determination. ... The four non-exhaustive Daubert factors: (1) Can, or has, the expert's method been tested; (2) Has the expert's method been subjected to peer review and publication, (3) Is there a known or potential rate of error and the existence of standards controlling the method, and (4) Is there widespread acceptance of the method within the relevant community of experts— all involve determination of facts.

Cited 17 times

  In re Neurontin Mktg., Sales Prac., & Prod. Liab. - 1st Circuit

Decided: 5/5/2009

An expert's methodology is the "central focus of a Daubert inquiry," but a court "may evaluate the data offered to support an expert's bottomline opinions to determine if that data provides adequate support to mark the expert's testimony as reliable." ... Under Daubert, Plaintiffs do not have to demonstrate that all scientists believe that gabapentin is GABAergic, but simply that their experts' "testimony rests upon `good grounds, based on what is known.'"

Cited 7 times

  McKenzie v. Benton - 10th Circuit

Decided: 11/9/2004

Daubert teaches that a district judge, when he encounters a proffer of expert scientific testimony, "must determine at the outset, pursuant to [Fed.R.Evid.] 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue." ... In addition to the testimony of Sheriffs Benton and Dovala and their experts, the defendant called Officers Hadlock, Rostad, Walsh, Laing, Davy, Kinghorn, and Potter, all of whom testified about their contacts with McKenzie before, during and after her illness in 1996, and said they would have trouble working with McKenzie due to their knowledge of her past disability as that affected their concerns about "trust," "confidence," and "comfort."

Cited 5 times

  US ex rel. Loughren v. UnumProvident Corp. - 1st Circuit

Decided: 2/24/2009

An expert's methodology is the "central focus of a Daubert inquiry," but a court "may evaluate the data offered to support an expert's bottom-line opinions to determine if that data provides adequate support to mark the expert's testimony as reliable." ... Whistleblower plaintiff, Patrick Loughren, brings this qui tam action against UnumProvident Corporation and Genex Services, Inc. (collectively "Unum") alleging violations of the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. Loughren proposes to submit expert testimony from Matthew G. Mercurio, Ph.D.,[1] in which Mercurio uses statistical techniques to extrapolate from the number of false claims within a sample of claims to an estimation of the total number of false claims filed.

Cited 2 times

  Parkhill v. ADLERMAN-CAVE MILLING & GRAIN - NM

Decided: 12/3/2010

{13} In addition to the evidentiary reliability standard in Rule 11-702, the Alberico Court adopted the United States Supreme Court holding in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), establishing that it is an "error to admit expert testimony involving scientific knowledge unless the party offering such testimony first establishes the evidentiary reliability of the scientific knowledge." ... In Alberico, 116 N.M. at 165-68, 861 P.2d at 201-04, our Supreme Court abandoned the "general acceptance" test of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923), in favor of the more flexible Daubert test for determining if expert opinion evidence involving "scientific knowledge" is reliable and therefore admissible under Rule 11-702.

Cited 0 times

  Parkhill v. Milling - NM

Decided: 10/6/2010

{13} In addition to the evidentiary reliability standard in Rule 11-702, the Alberico Court adopted the United States Supreme Court holding in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), establishing that it is an "error to admit expert testimony involving scientific knowledge unless the party offering such testimony first establishes the evidentiary reliability of the scientific knowledge." ... At the outset, we note that in McClain, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that a differential diagnosis approach may offer an important component of a valid methodology and can satisfy a Daubert analysis if the expert can show the general toxicity of the drug by reliable methods.

Cited 0 times

  Twyman v. GHK CORP. - OK

Decided: 6/7/2004

GHK and Mobil, in separate but substantively similar briefs, first argue they were entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the trial court erred in admitting expert scientific testimony on causation[4] which failed to meet the reliability standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)(hereafter Daubert). ... ¶ 17 In Christian, at 612, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined Daubert would be the evidentiary standard in the matter before it and remanded it to the trial court to allow the parties to present evidence in support of and in opposition to the reliability of the offered expert evidence.

Cited 0 times

  Drake v. ALLERGAN, INC. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 5/22/2015

And, importantly, another court had found that case reports, prevalence studies, adverse event reports, animal studies, and a hypothesis about a potential mechanism through which the drug supposedly caused the alleged injury were sufficiently reliable to permit an expert to testify. ... On the same day, Allergan moved to strike the testimony of Dr. Anna Hristova, the Plaintiffs' medical causation expert, ECF No. 177, and moved for judgment as a matter of law, ECF No. 178.

Cited 0 times

  Drake v. Allergan, Inc. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 5/22/2015

Prior to trial Allergan moved to exclude her testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... And, importantly, another court had found that case reports, prevalence studies, adverse event reports, animal studies, and a hypothesis about a potential mechanism through which the drug supposedly caused the alleged injury were sufficiently reliable to permit an expert to testify.

Cited 0 times