Showing results 1-10 of 21.


  General Electric Co. v. Joiner -

Decided: 12/15/1997
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

We granted certiorari in this case to determine what standard an appellate court should apply in reviewing a trial 139*139 court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993). ... And nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district judge to reject an expert's conclusions and keep them from the jury when they fit the facts of the case and are based on reliable scientific methodology.

Cited 1971 times
Smoking Abdomen Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Occupational safety and health 

  Moore v. Ashland Chemical Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 8/14/1998
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The majority en banc opinion (1) conflicts with the view of other circuits, a state court of last resort, and scholarly commentary, in 280*280 holding that (a) a clinical medical expert cannot express an opinion as to a causal relationship between a chemical compound and a plaintiff's disease, although the opinion is based on the sound application of generally accepted clinical medical methodology, unless the causal link is confirmed by hard scientific methodology as per the Daubert factors[1], see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); ... For example, the report of the American College of Trial Lawyers on Standards and Procedures For Determining the Admissibility of Expert Evidence After Daubert, 157 F.R.D. 571 (1994) recognizes that the basic Daubert requirement that a trial judge determine whether a proffer of expert testimony is reliable or valid applies to all forms of expert testimony and that the particular expert at issue should have her methodology, i.e. the validity of her opinion, judged by the principles applicable to "that particular field."

Cited 434 times
Respiratory diseases Respiratory therapy Occupational diseases Medical specialties Social sciences 

  Rosen v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 3/11/1996
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Regarding the second half of this test, the half involved in this case, we said before (but consistently with) Daubert that "an expert who supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process.... Professor Bryan would not accept from his students or those who submit papers to his journal an essay containing neither facts nor reasons; ... As Judge Kozinski has emphasized in his opinion on remand from the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert, it is a daunting task for judges who do not have a scientific background (and most do not) to decide whether a scientist's testimony is real science or not.

Cited 199 times
Liquid-solid separation Aging-associated diseases Medical emergencies Tobacco Smoking cessation 

  McClain v. Metabolife Intern., Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 3/2/2005
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

1237*1237 Before trial Metabolife moved to exclude Plaintiffs' experts' testimony on medical causation asserting that Plaintiffs' experts' opinions lacked a reliable foundation for admission under the standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... This type of proof requires expert testimony, and when a party offers expert testimony and the opposing party raises a Daubert challenge, the trial court must "make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field."

Cited 170 times
Occupational diseases Medical terminology Stroke Epidemiology Sympathomimetics 

  Burleson v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice - 5th Circuit

Decided: 12/9/2004
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

On appeal, this Court affirmed, finding the expert testimony unreliable under Daubert because, inter alia, "no epidemiological study has found a statistically significant link between EtO exposure and human brain cancer." ... However, "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."

Cited 99 times
Occupational safety and health Radioactivity Medical specialties Disorders causing seizures Occupational diseases 

  Bocanegra v. Vicmar Services, Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 2/19/2003
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

These factors are (1) whether the expert's theory can be or has been tested, (2) whether the theory has been subject to peer review and publication, (3) the known or potential rate of error of a technique or theory when applied, (4) the existence and maintenance of standards and controls, and (5) the degree to which the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community. ... It is clear from both Evans and Manno's testimony that, as a general principle, individuals smoke marijuana until they achieve a desired effect. None of the testimony adduced at the Daubert hearing shows that the general principle of self-titration would not encompass Sargent's use of marijuana on December 9. Further, when considered in light of Sargent's admission that he took five or six hits of marijuana, Manno's testimony indicates that Sargent's purpose in ingesting marijuana was not simply to "relax."

Cited 84 times
Cannabis smoking Titration Cigarettes 

  Cooper v. Brown - 9th Circuit

Decided: 12/4/2007
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

This grossly understates the level of scrutiny required by Daubert, which compels the Court to look beyond whether expert testimony can merely "assist" the trier of fact, and confirm that the expert uses a reliable and scientifically valid method. ... Cooper contends that the district court's testing protocol for the bloody T-shirt was flawed in five respects: (1) while the court facially complied with the en banc order allowing only Cooper to select a stain from the T-shirt for limited anti-clotting agent testing, it refused to allow presumptive blood testing to determine whether the stain tested was even a blood stain; (2) it did not allow his experts, Dr. Peter DeForest and Dr. Kevin Ballard, to view the T-shirt as a first step in designing the protocol; (3) it accepted at face value Dr. Gary Siuzdak's retraction of his EDTA testing results; (4) it denied testing for anti-clotting agent migration; and (5) it denied testing for other anti-clotting agents such as citric acid that were used to preserve Cooper's blood.

Cited 48 times
Non-SI metric units Electrophoresis Publishing Penology Total institutions 

  In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 4/6/1995
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

This case marks the convergence of epidemiological evidence, probabilistic causation in carcinogenic torts, and the important issue of the extent to which a trial court may assess the sufficiency of scientific evidence, in light of the Supreme Court's recent holding in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... Plaintiff's experts testified that because Maiorana was only 40 years old at the time of his death, had no family history of cancer, suffered from no special disease or syndrome, and did not face an abnormal risk in his diet inasmuch as it was low in fat, his colon cancer must have been caused by asbestos exposure.

Cited 48 times
Epidemiology Conditions diagnosed by stool test Hypothesis testing Occupational diseases Sampling (statistics) 

  Conwood Co., LP v. US Tobacco Co. - 6th Circuit

Decided: 5/15/2002
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Daubert, the Supreme Court "established a general gatekeeping [or screening] obligation for trial courts" to exclude from trial expert testimony that is unreliable and irrelevant. ... Pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise...."

Cited 47 times
Commercial crimes Business terms Anti-competitive behaviour Monopoly (economics) Judicial remedies 

  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