Showing results 1-3 of 3.


  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 

  MarcTec, LLc v. Johnson & Johnson - Federal Circuit

Decided: 1/3/2012
District Court Decision: Excluded

Although we agree with MarcTec that exclusion of expert testimony under Daubert does not automatically trigger a finding of litigation misconduct, and in most cases likely would not do so, we find that the circumstances of this case were sufficiently egregious to support an award of attorney fees. ... In response, Cordis argues that the sums it expended on experts were only necessary because MarcTec "pressed forward after receiving documentary evidence that refuted its allegations, and because MarcTec had its experts proffer junk science, including a bogus theory about supposed temperature changes that were not capable of being detected and an unrealistic test having no relation to the accused product."

Cited 6 times
Implants (medicine) Interventional radiology Medical devices 

  US v. McLean - 4th Circuit

Decided: 4/23/2013
District Court Decision: Excluded In Part
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Dr. Miller, the expert neuro-ophthalmologist, testified that the optic stroke McLean suffered in his left eye in October 2006 would not have affected his vision in years prior and that his preexisting drusen was highly unlikely to have significantly affected his ability to see because it caused only a minor field defect and did not affect his central vision.[7] ... 134*134 The other expert, Dr. Joseph Cinderella, Director of the PRMC Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, testified that he had reviewed the stent procedures McLean performed between 2003 and 2006 and ranked each procedure on a scale of one to five, where one meant medically appropriate and five meant inappropriate.

Cited 4 times
Interventional cardiology Medical terminology Interventional radiology Medical devices Implants (medicine)