Showing results 1-10 of 11.

Cases that cite: Pick v. American Medical Systems

  Soldo v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 1/13/2003

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.

Cited 41 times

  Siharath v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 3/1/2001

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standards for admissibility because Plaintiffs' experts (1) have failed to provide any evidence, either published or unpublished, that Parlodel® increases one's risk of stroke; (2) rely on uncontrolled and unreliable spontaneous reports and anecdotal case reports as the basis for their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.

Cited 36 times

  Glastetter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 8/14/2000

Thus, while plaintiffs' experts testified that in performing differential diagnosis in this case, they ruled out other possible causes of Glastetter's ICH, the experts and plaintiffs must also come forward with evidence "ruling in" Parlodel as a possible cause of ICH. If no evidence suggests that Parlodel can cause ICH in humans generally, then the Court does not believe that plaintiffs' experts conclusions that Parlodel caused ICH in Glastetter, as evidenced by their use of differential diagnosis, passes the reliability standards under Daubert and its progeny.[6] ... Defendant claims that both experts must be excluded, because they do not meet the test of scientific reliability set forth by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

Cited 18 times

  Lennon v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 12/19/2000

Daubert thus teaches that "`the trial judge must determine whether [an expert's] opinion was grounded in the "methods and procedures of science," Daubert, [cite] and whether such testimony had sufficient `factual underpinnings.'" ... The principle of Daubert is merely that if an expert witness is to offer an opinion based on science, it must be real science, not junk science.

Cited 15 times

  Lytle v. Ford Motor Co. - IN

Decided: 6/30/1998

In Daubert, the United States Supreme Court discussed the question of when expert scientific testimony is relevant and reliable. ... Daubert does not create, however, a special analysis for the admissibility of all expert witnesses.

Cited 15 times

  Hollander v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 3/21/2000

The plaintiffs' evidence of causation fails the test for scientific reliability set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the defendant contends, because their experts admit their causal hypotheses have not been tested and validated using the scientific method and they do not rule out other causes of Mrs. Hollander's stroke. ... "Under Daubert, when faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, a district court `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.'"

Cited 14 times

  Perkins v. Origin Medsystems Inc. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 1/14/2004

In Daubert, the Supreme Court set out a list of non-exclusive factors the trial court may consider in determining whether an expert's reasoning or methodology is reliable: (1) whether the theory or technique on which the expert relies 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 theory or technique has been subject to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; and (5) whether the theory or method has been generally accepted by the scientific community. ... Origin's arguments are rejected in light of McCullock, 61 F.3d at 1044 ("Disputes as to the ... faults in [the expert's] use of differential etiology as a methodology ... go to the weight, not the admissibility, of [the expert's] testimony."); (citing Daubert 509 U.S. at 596, 113 S.Ct. 2786) ("Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.");

Cited 11 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

  Bartley v. Euclid, Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 10/20/1998
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Euclid's motions for summary judgment, challenging the admission of plaintiffs' expert testimony on the basis of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), were denied, and the case was tried to a jury. ... Euclid contends that the district court abused its discretion and violated its gate-keeping responsibilities under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) by admitting the plaintiffs' expert testimony.

Cited 4 times
Engineering vehicles Skeletal system Occupational diseases Commercial item transport and distribution Medical specialties 

  FRISCHHERTZ v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION - 5th Circuit

Decided: 12/21/2012

ed. 2011) ("In a number of cases, experts attempted to use these guidelines to support the existence of causation in the absence of any epidemiologic studies finding an association . . . . ... Indeed, plaintiffs' own expert pharmacologist, Dr. Joseph Hirsch, acknowledged that nothing in his review of the scientific literature indicated that Paxil administered to pregnant animals disrupts embryonic serotonin.

Cited 0 times