Showing results 1-10 of 16.

  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 

  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 

  Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 2/3/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Given the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the flexible nature of the Daubert inquiry, and the proper roles of the judge and the jury in evaluating the ultimate credibility of an expert's opinion, we do not believe that a medical expert must always cite published studies on general causation in order to reliably conclude that a particular object caused a particular illness. ... In Daubert, the Court noted that "[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence," and that, even if expert testimony is admitted, summary judgment might be warranted if a party has still failed to present sufficient evidence to get to the jury.

Cited 319 times
Medical terminology Floors Abnormal respiration Symptoms and signs: Respiratory system Building biology 

  Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. SS Co., Inc. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 3/21/1996
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded, Affirmed

Under Daubert's interpretation of Rule 104(a), a district court facing a proffer of scientific expert testimony must as a preliminary matter assess whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the expert's testimony is scientifically valid. ... The court scheduled a pretrial Daubert hearing at plaintiff's request to determine if the expert testimony regarding radiation exposure as a cause of mesothelioma was admissible.

Cited 199 times
Respiratory diseases Occupational diseases 

  Johnson v. Arkema, Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 6/20/2012
District Court Decision: Excluded, Excluded In Part
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

With regard to the reliability of an expert's causation opinion under Daubert, the Curtis court found that "a temporal connection is entitled to greater weight when there is an established scientific connection between exposure and illness or other circumstantial evidence supporting the causal link." ... In conducting our review, "[w]e 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 459*459 is sufficient to support that expert's opinion."

Cited 89 times
Medical terminology Respiratory diseases Symptoms and signs: Respiratory system Lung disorders Abnormal respiration 

  Turner v. Iowa Fire Equipment Company - 8th Circuit

Decided: 9/22/2000
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Most circuits have held that a reliable differential diagnosis satisfies Daubert and provides a valid foundation for admitting an expert opinion. ... Daubert ensures that all expert testimony is scientifically reliable before being submitted to the jury.

Cited 83 times
Occupational diseases Asthma Respiratory diseases Medical terminology English inventions 

  Zuchowicz v. US - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 3/20/1998
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Under Daubert, trial judges are charged with ensuring that expert testimony "both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." ... McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co., 61 F.3d 1038, 1042 (2d Cir.1995) ("The decision to admit expert testimony is left to the broad discretion of the trial judge and will be overturned only when manifestly erroneous.").

Cited 77 times
Cardiovascular physiology Respiratory diseases Gynaecology Occupational diseases Obstetrics 

  Happel v. Walmart Stores, Inc. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 4/19/2010
District Court Decision: Excluded, Excluded In Part
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Less than two months before trial, the Happels attempted to list Dr. Bringewald as an expert witness in their pre-trial order, seeking to elicit testimony that psychological stress from the Toradol incident exacerbated Heidi's MS. Walmart filed a motion in limine to exclude Dr. Bringewald's proffered expert testimony, arguing that he had not been properly disclosed and that his opinion was not reliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... We agree with the trial court's decision to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts because the plaintiffs failed to properly disclose one in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the other's expertise and methodology did not comply with the Daubert standard.

Cited 53 times
Medical terminology Medical specialties Respiratory diseases Stress Respiratory therapy 

  Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 1/13/2009
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The district court found Dr. Maier's assertion that the presence of multi-nucleated giant cells alone could lead to a diagnosis of CBD failed to satisfy the Daubert standard because the basis of such a diagnosis had not been tested or subjected to peer review or publication, and otherwise was not generally accepted in the medical community, and her "mere assurances" her methodology for diagnosis was "generally accepted" in the scientific community was insufficient to render her testimony and report reliable pursuant to Daubert. ... On appeal, the employees contend the district court erred in (1) excluding Dr. Maier's expert testimony and report; (2) excluding two additional slides from evidence; (3) finding BeS is not a compensable injury pursuant to Mississippi law; and (4) finding Moran did not have CBD.

Cited 39 times
Respiratory diseases Anatomical pathology Medical terminology Medical specialties Immune system 

  US v. WR Grace - 9th Circuit

Decided: 9/20/2007
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

This interlocutory appeal brought by the government concerns six orders grouped into four sections: the first order dismissed the knowing endangerment object of Count I's conspiracy charge; the second adopted a particular definition of asbestos and excluded evidence inconsistent with that definition; the third denied a motion to exclude evidence related to an affirmative defense and relied on an emission standard for asbestos contained in certain Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") regulations, see, e.g., 40 C.F.R. §§ 61.142-61.149; and the fourth through sixth orders excluded certain evidence and expert testimony. ... Nor did the district court consider the possibility of expert reliance on the ATSDR Report without disclosure of the 766*766 study itself to the jury, as provided for by Rule 703 ("If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted.").

Cited 17 times
Iron minerals Magnesium minerals Amphibole group Monoclinic minerals Respiratory diseases