Showing results 1-10 of 13.

Cases that cite: Kelley v. American Heyer-Schulte Corp.

  Norris v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 2/8/2005
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

After conducting a Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), inquiry[2], the district court excluded both experts because they were unreliable. ... Although "[t]rained experts commonly extrapolate from existing data," neither Daubert nor the Federal Rules of Evidence "require[] a district court to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert."

Cited 128 times
Medical terminology Rheumatology Autoimmune diseases Accounting terminology Breast surgery 

  Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co. - 6th Circuit

Decided: 9/8/2010
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

The manufacturers here do not challenge the district court's primary Daubert ruling on Parkinson's Disease testimony, In re Welding Fume Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 03-cv-17000, 2005 WL 1868046, at *22-37 (N.D.Ohio Aug. 8, 2005), and so we do not decide whether other experts may testify that manganese exposure causes Parkinson's Disease. ... Jan Beyea & Daniel Berger, Scientific Misconceptions among Daubert Gatekeepers: The Need for Reform of Expert Review Procedures, 64 LAW & CONTEMP.

Cited 101 times
Neurological disorders Extrapyramidal and movement disorders Midbrain Railway occupations Medical terminology 

  Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co. - 6th Circuit

Decided: 9/8/2010

The manufacturers here do not challenge the district court's primary Daubert ruling on Parkinson's Disease testimony, In re Welding Fume Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 03-cv-17000, 2005 WL 1868046, at *22-37 (N.D.Ohio Aug. 8, 2005), and so we do not decide whether other experts may testify that manganese exposure causes Parkinson's Disease. ... Jan Beyea & Daniel Berger, Scientific Misconceptions among Daubert Gatekeepers: The Need for Reform of Expert Review Procedures, 64 LAW & CONTEMP.

Cited 101 times

  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

  Meister v. Medical Engineering Corp. - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 10/26/2001
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Under Daubert, the district court is required to address two questions, first whether the expert's testimony is based on "scientific knowledge," and second, whether the testimony "will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue." ... The defendants thereafter moved to exclude or limit the testimony of Meister's expert witnesses on causation, pursuant to Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703.

Cited 39 times
Rheumatology Medical terminology Autoimmune diseases Plate tectonics Mucinoses 

  Schafersman v. Agland Coop. - NE

Decided: 7/20/2001

We therefore hold prospectively, for trials commencing on or after October 1, 2001, that in trial proceedings, the admissibility of expert opinion testimony under the Nebraska rules of evidence should be determined based upon the standards first set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... Agland urges this court to again consider adopting the test set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 872*872 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), for the evaluation of expert opinion testimony.

Cited 19 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

  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

  Vassallo v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation - MA

Decided: 7/16/1998

The record prepared on the motions included references to medical and scientific publications, affidavits expressing the views of experts, and the transcript of a four-day evidentiary hearing, 9*9 held in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon,[7] pursuant to the Daubert decisions,[8] on defense motions in limine in several consolidated products liability actions to exclude expert testimony offered by the plaintiffs on causation issues relating to alleged injuries claimed from silicone breast implants. ... This issue had been discussed in detail at the Daubert hearing, held by the Federal District Court in Oregon, by expert witnesses who both opposed and supported the scientific reliability of Dr. Garrido's research.

Cited 10 times

  Minnesota Min. and Mfg. Co. v. Atterbury - TX

Decided: 7/31/1998

However, in determining whether an expert's testimony is scientifically reliable, an appellate court must necessarily look beyond any magic words and look at the numerous factors that have been developed in Daubert, Robinson, and Havner. ... The trial court excluded the plaintiff's experts based on Daubert and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Cited 6 times