Showing results 1-10 of 11.


  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 

  Huss v. Gayden - 5th Circuit

Decided: 6/10/2009
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

After erasing the Husses' jury verdict based on the district court's exclusion of a portion of Dr. Reddix's testimony, Judge DeMoss then includes nine pages of dicta "making observations" about the admissibility of the Husses' expert evidence, an issue plainly not before this court; this while finding reversible error in the district court's refusal to admit part of the testimony of a defense expert—which somehow escapes its volunteer Daubert examination. ... However, Daubert "assigned the trial court a gatekeeper role to ensure [expert] testimony is both reliable and relevant."

Cited 119 times
Neonatology Cardiomyopathy Medical emergencies Medical specialties Sampling (statistics) 

  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 

  Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc. - 6th Circuit

Decided: 8/19/2004
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Additionally, the experts portray Champion's death as being relatively peaceful by showing that any of the three potential, and possibly cumulative, causes of Champion's death — positional asphyxia, asphyxia resulting from gastric aspiration, or cardiac arrest prompted by Champion's angulated right coronary artery — would not have been particularly painful. ... The Officers rely principally on Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342 (6th Cir.1994), in which we held that the plaintiff's expert, a so-called specialist in the field of "police policies and practices" was not qualified to speak about the city government's policy of disciplining officers for alleged uses of excessive force.

Cited 31 times
Symptoms and signs: Respiratory system Lachrymatory agents Medical emergencies Horse tack Animal equipment 

  US v. Hansen - 11th Circuit

Decided: 8/24/2001
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

A district court should conduct a Daubert inquiry when the opposing party's motion for a hearing is supported by "conflicting medical literature and expert testimony." ... Daubert hearings are not required, but may be helpful in "complicated cases involving multiple expert witnesses."

Cited 28 times
Sewerage Hazardous waste Petroleum production Aquatic ecology Manufacturing 

  Johnson v. Mead Johnson & Co., LLC - 8th Circuit

Decided: 6/6/2014
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

While we adhere to this discretionary standard for review of the district court's Rule 702 gatekeeping decision, cases are legion that, correctly, under Daubert, call for the liberal admission of expert testimony. ... Daubert and Rule 702 thus greatly liberalized what had been the strict Frye standards for admission of expert scientific testimony.

Cited 23 times
Infancy Medical specialties Medical terminology Pediatrics Cardiovascular physiology 

  Weigel v. Broad - 10th Circuit

Decided: 10/21/2008

Price v. County of San Diego, 990 F.Supp. 1230, 1234-40 (S.D.Cal.1998) (recognizing dispute between the experts concerning whether hog-tying leads to asphyxia and concluding officers used reasonable force in placing Price face-down, hog-tying him and applying pressure to his torso after he 1176*1176 struggled with officers and tried to grab their guns). ... Moreover, although the court found there were questions of fact as to whether the city was liable for failure to adequately train, it noted there was a dispute between the parties' experts on the causes of sudden in-custody death and whether Johnson's death was in fact caused by the restraint used.

Cited 4 times
Medical emergencies Physical restraint Law enforcement terminology Alcohol abuse Psychiatric diagnosis 

  Grant v. City of Houston - 5th Circuit

Decided: 9/10/2015

Blake criticized HPD's expert reports on the ground that the police failed to preserve and document the scene of the shooting adequately, but he also found fault with Otto's conclusion that Buster's neck wound was an exit wound, observing that, "[i]f this is the only wound, it stands to reason it must be an entrance wound, and . . . ... The expert also noted that the absence of a blood drip trail indicated that Buster died "very near the time the fatal wound was inflicted," and that Buster "appears to have been struck by a bullet fired travelling from front to back and along the underside of the dog's head and throat."

Cited 0 times
Medical emergencies Injuries