Showing results 1-4 of 4.

  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 

  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) 

  Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services - Federal Circuit

Decided: 8/27/2010
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Apart from the argument concerning Daubert, petitioners' primary contention on appeal is that the Special Master erred in permitting the government to introduce the expert reports and testimony of Dr. Bustin because the government did not make available the underlying Unigenetics documents upon which Dr. Bustin relied. ... While Daubert does not require that the experts' ultimate conclusions be generally accepted in the scientific community, and the focus of a Daubert inquiry must generally be "`on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate,'" "conclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another....

Cited 0 times
Measles Immunodeficiency Nose disorders Psychiatric diagnosis Molecular biology 

  MATOSKY v. Manning - 5th Circuit

Decided: 6/8/2011
District Court Decision: Excluded

Rule 702 encompasses the Daubert inquiry, and also gives district courts flexibility in determining whether an expert's testimony is reliable. ... First, the district court concluded that Dr. Leitman's testimony should be excluded as unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), because (1) Dr. Leitman simply asserted that the needle punctured Mrs. Matosky's chest wall, heart, pericardium, or surrounding blood vessels, without an evidentiary basis for that assertion; and (2) he failed to consider other causes of Mrs. Matosky's symptoms, such as a viral syndrome.

Cited 0 times
Biopsy Pericardial disorders Angiology Cardiac anatomy Breast surgery