Showing results 1-10 of 28.


  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 

  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 

  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 

  Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 3/19/2007
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Daubert suggested that a trial judge consider: whether the theory or technique the expert employs is generally accepted; whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; whether the theory can and has been tested; whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable; and whether there are standards controlling the technique's operation. ... We are mindful that under Daubert and FED. R. EVID. 702, a district court has broad discretion to determine whether a body of evidence relied upon by an expert is sufficient to support that expert's opinion.

Cited 159 times
Hypothesis testing Urological conditions Infectious diseases 

  Best v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. - 6th Circuit

Decided: 4/16/2009
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

We further note that, even without Dr. Moreno's expert testimony, summary judgment might be inappropriate in this case in light of this court's recent decision in Gass v. Marriott Hotel Services, 558 F.3d 419, 434 (6th Cir.2009) (holding that expert testimony was not required to prove the causation element of a negligence case where the plaintiffs were allegedly exposed to pesticides and immediately developed respiratory injuries). ... According to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), a district court's task in assessing evidence proffered under Rule 702 is to determine whether the evidence "both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand."

Cited 121 times
Neurological disorders Medical terminology Human head and neck Medical specialties Chemical safety 

  Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co. - 6th Circuit

Decided: 9/8/2010
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

The manufacturers here do not challenge the district court's primary Daubert ruling on Parkinson's Disease testimony, In re Welding Fume Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 03-cv-17000, 2005 WL 1868046, at *22-37 (N.D.Ohio Aug. 8, 2005), and so we do not decide whether other experts may testify that manganese exposure causes Parkinson's Disease. ... Jan Beyea & Daniel Berger, Scientific Misconceptions among Daubert Gatekeepers: The Need for Reform of Expert Review Procedures, 64 LAW & CONTEMP.

Cited 101 times
Neurological disorders Extrapyramidal and movement disorders Midbrain Railway occupations Medical terminology 

  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 

  Curtis v. M&S PETROLEUM, INC. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 5/13/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In this appeal, Plaintiffs challenge: (1) the district court's exclusion of Plaintiffs' expert witness on the issue of medical causation; (2) the district court's exclusion of the proffered testimony of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality personnel; and (3) the district court's refusal to allow Plaintiffs to introduce evidence that Defendant Barrett Refining Corporation's corporate representative invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege at his deposition. ... After conducting a hearing in limine, during which the district judge heard the proffered testimony of Dr. Stevens and that of the defense experts, Dr. William Rock and Dr. Robert Andrew Budinsky, the district judge excluded the testimony of Dr. Stevens.

Cited 96 times
Chemical safety Abnormal respiration Symptoms and signs: Respiratory system Medical terminology Occupational safety and health 

  Allen v. Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 12/31/1996
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

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 Allen's occupational exposure to EtO, the expert testimony does not exhibit the level of reliability necessary to comport with Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, the Supreme Court's Daubert decision,[1] and this court's authorities. ... Although the trial court wrote a cursory opinion on the admissibility of Allen's expert evidence, the parties developed a considerable record, and the court heard oral argument before rendering a decision that the experts' evidence, testimony and opinions did not satisfy the standards set forth in Daubert or relevant authorities of this Court.

Cited 90 times
Disorders causing seizures Occupational safety and health Occupational diseases Carcinogenesis Brain