Showing results 11-20 of 15059.


  Smith v. Ford Motor Co. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 6/2/2000
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

The Daubert standard applies to all expert testimony, whether it relates to areas of traditional scientific competence or whether it is founded on engineering principles or other technical or specialized expertise. ... Where an expert's hypothetical explanation of the possible or probable causes of an event would aid the 719*719 jury in its deliberations, that testimony satisfies Daubert's relevancy requirement.

Cited 380 times
Engineering disciplines 

  Amorgianos v. National RR Passenger Corp. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 8/28/2002
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Concluding that the bright-line "general acceptance" test established in Frye was at odds with the "liberal thrust" of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (internal quotation marks omitted), the Supreme Court has made clear that the district court has a "gatekeeping" function under Rule 702 — it is charged with "the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." ... As Chief Judge Becker of the Third Circuit has explained, the Daubert "requirement that the expert testify to scientific knowledge — conclusions supported by good grounds for each step in the analysis — means that any step that renders the analysis unreliable under the Daubert factors renders the expert's testimony inadmissible."

Cited 376 times
Peripheral nervous system disorders Solvents Medical specialties Chemical compounds Filters 

  Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB - 4th Circuit

Decided: 5/20/1999
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Cf. Wintz v. Northrop Corp., 110 F.3d 508, 512-14 (7th Cir.1997) (holding that expert opinion was not reliable when expert formed opinion that in utero exposure to bromide caused birth defects, but 265*265 expert had no information concerning the mother's work environment or her exposure to bromide); ... Consequently, while precise information concerning the exposure necessary to cause specific harm to humans and exact details pertaining to the plaintiff's exposure are beneficial, such evidence is not always available, or necessary, to demonstrate that a substance is toxic to humans given substantial exposure and need not invariably provide the basis for an expert's opinion on causation.

Cited 321 times
Medical terminology Occupational safety and health 

  Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 2/3/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Given the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the flexible nature of the Daubert inquiry, and the proper roles of the judge and the jury in evaluating the ultimate credibility of an expert's opinion, we do not believe that a medical expert must always cite published studies on general causation in order to reliably conclude that a particular object caused a particular illness. ... In Daubert, the Court noted that "[v]igorous 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," and that, even if expert testimony is admitted, summary judgment might be warranted if a party has still failed to present sufficient evidence to get to the jury.

Cited 319 times
Medical terminology Floors Abnormal respiration Symptoms and signs: Respiratory system Building biology 

  Kannankeril v. Terminix Intern., Inc. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 10/17/1997
Amended: 12/12/1997
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

We conclude, however, that Dr. Gerson's opinion meets the requirements for the admission of expert testimony under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as set forth in Daubert and interpreted by us in Paoli. ... Rule 702 has three major requirements: (1) the proffered witness must be an expert; (2) the expert must testify about matters requiring scientific, technical or specialized knowledge; and (3) the expert's testimony must assist the trier of fact.

Cited 292 times
Bees Beekeeping 

  Lauzon v. Senco Products, Inc. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 10/26/2001
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In applying the rules of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), but without holding a pretrial Daubert hearing, the district court excluded Kelsey's expert testimony, finding insufficient evidence to sustain plaintiff's case, and granted summary judgment for the defendant. ... Daubert's progeny provides additional factors such as: whether the expertise was developed for litigation or naturally flowed from the expert's research; whether the proposed expert ruled out other alternative explanations; and whether the proposed expert sufficiently connected the proposed testimony with the facts of the case.

Cited 288 times
Engineering failures Mechanisms (engineering) Woodworking hand-held power tools Pneumatic tools 

  Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 4/18/2002
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed, Reversed/Remanded

In the later case of Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,[16] the Supreme Court emphasized that the Daubert analysis is a "flexible" one, and that "the factors identified in Daubert may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert's particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony."[17] ... The district court excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts, Doctors Millet and Coco, under the standard set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[1] The district court concluded that without the testimony of their two witnesses, the plaintiffs could not establish their case and granted summary judgment in favor of Biomatrix.

Cited 288 times
Medical specialties Drug delivery devices Medical equipment Foodborne illnesses Body fluids 

  Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico Bottling - 1st Circuit

Decided: 12/1/1998
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

The Daubert questions in this case are complex and implicate four interrelated pieces of evidence: (1) the toxicology results contained in the autopsy report; (2) the so-called "dosage" testimony, i.e., the expert opinions of a pharmacologist relating to the amount of drugs that Ruiz consumed and the time of their consumption, arrived at by interpolation from the toxicology results; (3) the so-called "impairment" testimony, i.e., the pharmacologist's expert opinions regarding the effects of cocaine on behavior; and (4) the so-called "causation" testimony, i.e., certain expert opinions of the defense's accident reconstructionist. ... The Daubert Court's interpretation of Rule 702, drawn from its text, requires the trial judge to evaluate an expert's proposed testimony for both reliability and relevance prior to admitting it.

Cited 282 times
Medical terminology Commercial item transport and distribution Medical diagnosis Thought 

  Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 2/3/1999

Given the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the flexible nature of the Daubert inquiry, and the proper roles of the judge and the jury in evaluating the ultimate credibility of an expert's opinion, we do not believe that a medical expert must always cite published studies on general causation in order to reliably conclude that a particular object caused a particular illness. ... In Daubert, the Court noted that "[v]igorous 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," and that, even if expert testimony is admitted, summary judgment might be warranted if a party has still failed to present sufficient evidence to get to the jury.

Cited 276 times

  Schneider Ex Rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 2/18/2003
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Plaintiffs appeal from the Magistrate Judge's grant of a dispositive motion at the conclusion of plaintiffs' case after he had excluded the testimony, following a Daubert hearing, of plaintiffs' two medical experts who testified that Dr. Fried violated the applicable standard of care by administering the drug Procardia sublingually to Mrs. Schneider as a pretreatment for an angioplasty. ... Indeed, in Daubert, the Supreme Court specifically held that Rule 702 overruled the requirement that an opinion must gain general acceptance in order to qualify as admissible expert testimony;

Cited 274 times
Interventional cardiology Medical terminology Vascular procedures Ischemic heart diseases Cardiac procedures