Showing results 1-4 of 4.


  Schneider Ex Rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 2/18/2003
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Plaintiffs appeal from the Magistrate Judge's grant of a dispositive motion at the conclusion of plaintiffs' case after he had excluded the testimony, following a Daubert hearing, of plaintiffs' two medical experts who testified that Dr. Fried violated the applicable standard of care by administering the drug Procardia sublingually to Mrs. Schneider as a pretreatment for an angioplasty. ... Indeed, in Daubert, the Supreme Court specifically held that Rule 702 overruled the requirement that an opinion must gain general acceptance in order to qualify as admissible expert testimony;

Cited 274 times
Interventional cardiology Medical terminology Vascular procedures Ischemic heart diseases Cardiac procedures 

  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) 

  Bradley v. Sugarbaker - 1st Circuit

Decided: 12/16/2015
District Court Decision: Excluded

By excluding Dr. Putnam's testimony, the district court effectively prevented Mrs. Bradley from presenting evidence that Dr. Sugarbaker's "duty to disclose in a reasonable manner all significant medical information," Harnish, 439 N.E.2d at 243, necessitated a discussion of non-surgical alternatives and therefore from rebutting Dr. Strauss's testimony to the contrary, see Pages-Ramirez, 605 F.3d at 116 (finding that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow an expert to testify in a medical malpractice case where, "without [the expert]'s testimony on causation and the standard of care, the plaintiffs were unable to present evidence on two elements of their case"). ... To establish the appropriate standard of care, a plaintiff typically must present expert testimony to that effect. Pages-Ramuírez v. Ramírez-González, 605 F.3d 109, 113 (1st Cir.2010) ("In order to determine the applicable standard of care in a medical malpractice action and to make a judgment on causation, a trier of fact will generally need the assistance of expert testimony.").

Cited 0 times
Medical terminology Cytopathology Biopsy Antifungals Medical specialties