Showing results 1-10 of 10.


  In re Paoli RR Yard PCB Litigation - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 8/31/1994
Amended: 10/17/1994
District Court Decision: Excluded In Part
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Daubert suggests several factors that a district court should take into account in evaluating whether a particular scientific methodology is reliable (i.e. scientifically valid), including the testability of the expert's hypothesis ("whether it can be (and has been) tested"), Daubert, ___ U.S. at ____, 113 S.Ct. at 2796, whether the methodology has been subjected to peer review and publication, the frequency by which the methodology leads to erroneous results, the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation, and whether the methodology has been generally accepted in the scientific community.[7] ... Primarily, however, we must consider the voluminous record concerning expert opinion and, applying Fed.R.Evid. 702 and the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., ___ U.S. ____, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), decide whether the district court erred in again excluding the opinions of plaintiffs' experts in connection with its summary judgment determination.

Cited 908 times
Medical terminology Medical specialties Proteomics Respiratory diseases Industrial occupations 

  In re TMI Litigation - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 11/2/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Accordingly, before proceeding with our discussion of the District Court's application of Daubert to the expert testimony that was offered to prove that TMI-2 released radiation that caused the Trial Plaintiffs' neoplasms we will briefly discuss the operation of a nuclear power plant in an effort to better determine if Trial Plaintiffs proffered sufficient evidence to connect their injuries to the nuclear reactions that took place inside the nuclear generator at TMI-2. ... Defendants challenged the admissibility of the experts' testimony and the District Court was therefore required to hold extensive in limine hearings pursuant to its "gatekeeping" role under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

Cited 260 times
Nuclear physics Radioactivity Particle physics Nuclear technology Nuclear chemistry 

  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 

  Hollander v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 5/10/2002
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

See generally Mark Hansen, "When Expert Testimony Fails the Test: District Courts Disagree on what Defines Causation Evidence in Drug Disability Cases," 88 ABA Journal 22 (Jan.2002) (stating that "[an] Alabama magistrate's decision brought to eight the number of products liability suits over Parlodel that have survived a so-called Daubert challenge to the admissibility of the plaintiffs' causation evidence [b]ut [an] Illinois judge's ruling — tantamount to an order of summary judgment for the defense — marked the seventh trial or appellate decision to exclude such evidence"). ... See generally Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 27 (2d ed.2000) (observing that, in light of the abuse of discretion standard of review for Daubert determinations of reliability, "in theory judges are free to select different procedures and apply different factors to a particular expert or type of expertise than their colleagues do in the same district or circuit" and that "[a]s a consequence, similar cases could be resolved differently on the basis of inconsistent determinations 1207*1207 about admissibility");

Cited 101 times
Medical terminology Cardiovascular physiology Medical emergencies Dopamine agonists Aging-associated diseases 

  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 

  Kudabeck v. Kroger Co. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 8/4/2003
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Finally, nothing in Rule 702, Daubert, or its progeny requires "that an expert resolve an ultimate issue of fact to a scientific absolute in order to be admissible." ... In Daubert, the Supreme Court charged trial judges with the responsibility of acting as gatekeepers to "ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable."

Cited 68 times
Medical terminology Skeletal system Irregular bones Symptoms Alternative medicine 

  Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 8/12/2010
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The Plaintiff, Douglas Kilpatrick, claiming to have been injured by one of Breg's pumps, proffered a single expert witness on the issue of causation — Dr. Gary Poehling, M.D. The district court determined that the methodology used by Dr. Poehling to reach his conclusions was unreliable and, therefore, his testimony was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... "Because the task of evaluating the reliability of expert testimony is uniquely entrusted to the district court under Daubert ... we give the district court `considerable leeway' in the execution of its duty."

Cited 60 times
Orthopedic surgical procedures Skeletal system Joints Endoscopy Occupational diseases 

  In re GNC Corp. - 4th Circuit

Decided: 6/19/2015

Having done the due diligence required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they need not fear that the defendant's subsequent production of a surprise expert whose opinion is not reflected in the published scientific literature would expose them to Rule 11 sanctions.[9] ... The district court dismissed the CAC without prejudice and expressly granted the plaintiffs leave to re-file if they could plead (in accordance with Rule 11) that "any reasonable expert would conclude from the cited studies that glucosamine and chondroitin do not improve joint health in non-arthritic consumers."

Cited 2 times
Dietary supplements Aging-associated diseases Arthritis Skeletal disorders Glycosaminoglycans 

  Gunderson v. US Dept. of Labor - 10th Circuit

Decided: 4/8/2010

Peabody Coal Co. v. Hill, 123 F.3d 412, 417 (6th Cir.1997) (concluding that the ALJ's explanation was sufficient when he offered specific reasons for crediting and discounting the testimony of physicians regarding the existence of pneumoconiosis, including (a) the fact that the mining company's experts did not "persuasively discount[] the effects of [the miner's] thirty-seven years of underground employment in rejecting the impact of coal dust exposure in their analysis of the cause of [the miner's] disability" and "offered no detailed analysis to support ruling out coal mine employment as the cause of [the miner's] respiratory condition[;]" (b) that the opinions of some experts "did not take into account [the miner's] smoking history[;]" (c) that another expert's opinion "accounted both for coal dust exposure and smoking history in diagnosing pneumoconiosis," and was thus the most credible; and (d) that the experts whom the ALJ found 1026*1026 credible based their opinions "on many factors that included and extended beyond the x-ray reports"). ... For example, in Consolidation Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 521 F.3d 723 (7th Cir.2008), the ALJ heard conflicting evidence from two of the same experts who testified in Mr. Gunderson's case: Drs. Cohen and Renn. Instead of concluding, as the ALJ did here, that the experts' testimony was "evenly balanced, and should receive equal weight," Rec., ALJ Materials, Dec. & Order, filed March 21, 2007, at 22, the ALJ in Consolidation Coal offered an explanation as to why Dr. Cohen had the better view: "The ALJ found Dr. Cohen's opinion most persuasive because he carefully discussed the substantial body of scientific evidence documenting the causal relationship between [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and occupational exposure....

Cited 0 times
Respiratory diseases Medical specialties Respiratory physiology Respiratory therapy Abnormal respiration