Showing results 1-10 of 13.

  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 

  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 

  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 

  Dickenson v. CARDIAC & THORACIC SURGERY TN - 6th Circuit

Decided: 10/25/2004
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Despite Dr. Johnson's extensive experience, the district court did not allow him to testify regarding the medical services rendered by Dr. Rosser on the ground that Dr. Johnson's testimony was unreliable under the gatekeeping principles set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and its progeny. ... In sum, Daubert's role of "ensur[ing] that the courtroom door remains closed to junk science," Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 267 (2d Cir.2002), is not served by excluding testimony such as Dr. Johnson's that is supported by extensive relevant experience.

Cited 36 times
Cardiac surgery Respiratory therapy Surgical specialties Thoracic surgery Medical pumps 

  Tanner v. Westbrook - 5th Circuit

Decided: 4/27/1999
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Prior to trial, the defendants filed a motion for an FRE 104 hearing to exclude the testimony of two of the Tanners' experts — Drs. St. Amant and Nestrud — as failing to clear the hurdles of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).[1] ... In Daubert, the Supreme Court provided a list of factors, such as testing, peer review, error rates, and acceptance of the opinion in the relevant scientific community, that a court may choose to use in determining the reliability of an expert's testimony.

Cited 33 times
Congenital disorders Neonatology Acid–base disturbances Intensive care medicine Obstetrics 

  Higgins v. KOCH DEVELOPMENT CORP. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 7/20/2015
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

If the district court properly applied that framework (and Higgins concedes that, in evaluating the sufficiency of Dr. Haacke's opinion testimony, it did), we review the court's decision to exclude expert testimony that is, its application of the Daubert framework — for an abuse of discretion. ... Treating physicians are no different than any other expert for purposes of Rule 702; before proffering expert testimony, they must withstand Daubert scrutiny like everyone else.

Cited 18 times
Respiration Respiratory therapy Asthma Bees Beekeeping 

  US v. Weber - 9th Circuit

Decided: 6/20/2006

The effectiveness of these procedures in the treatment of sexual offenders is disputed among the experts, with one commentator noting that "some researchers believe that basic self-reporting . . . is as effective as [plethysmograph testing] or other techniques," id., and another study concluding that "the psychometric data on these alternative approaches is far less satisfactory than for phallometrics," Marshall & Fernandez, supra, at 817. ... We expect that the probation officer or the district court will ordinarily consult the views of a psychologist or other expert as to the propriety of plethysmograph testing for the particular defendant, although there may be circumstances in which it is not necessary to do so.

Cited 7 times
Psychoactive drugs Sex crimes Psychiatric diagnosis Penis Male genital procedures 

  US v. McLaurin - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 10/3/2013

The judge observed in a generalized way that plethysmographic testing requirements are "important conditions in regard to SORNA cases and sex offender registration" and "are relevant to diagnosis and evaluation in the future," but otherwise made no findings—and certainly no specific findings—about the efficacy of this condition, or about why it was called for by the statutory sentencing factors or by the Sentencing Guidelines. ... Moreover, in determining whether penile plethysmography is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, the district court must also make findings (also sufficiently informative and defendant-specific for appellate review) that the technique can be, and has been, assessed for reliability and efficacy, that it has been subject to peer review, and that it has been generally accepted in the scientific community.

Cited 2 times
Medical testing equipment Male genital procedures Pulmonary function testing Respiratory therapy Medical equipment 

  US v. Lee - 6th Circuit

Decided: 9/13/2007

According to the Presentencing Report ("PSR"), under the Guidelines, Lee received a base offense level of 24 for violating section 2422(b) and a two-point increase for using a computer "to persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate the travel of, a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct." ... At that time, the district court can determine whether these conditions — and in particular, the use of a penile plethysmograph — "involve[] no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary" to deter future criminal conduct, protect the public, and provide Lee with needed training or treatment.

Cited 2 times
Respiratory therapy Medical equipment Pulmonary function testing 


Decided: 6/25/2002

Nevertheless, it remains the case that the results of such tests must be interpreted by qualified medical experts "in conjunction with the occupational history, clinical examination, and pulmonary function tests" of the miner, id., including: (1) the results of x-ray, spirometry, blood gas or other tests; (2) the readings of MRI, ultrasonographic or gallium lung scans; and (3) the reasoned opinions of all the experts and physicians. ... The employer's argument is fatally flawed in several respects, the most obvious being the assumption that the medical community has reached a consensus about the singular, best method for diagnosing pneumoconiosis — whether it is with the CT scan or with pathological autopsies, x-rays read by B-readers, or the myriad of other commonly used expert diagnostic tests undertaken with or without a CT scan.[11]

Cited 2 times
Respiratory diseases Occupational diseases Medical terminology Medical imaging X-ray computed tomography