Showing results 1-10 of 10.


  Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 8/18/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

While meticulous Daubert inquiries may bring judges under criticism for donning white coats and making determinations that are outside their field of expertise, the Supreme Court has obviously deemed this less objectionable than dumping a barrage of questionable scientific evidence on a jury, who would likely be even less equipped than the judge to make reliability and relevance determinations and more likely than the judge to be awestruck by the expert's mystique. ... Some judges, noting the general complexity of some expert evidence and in the penultimate exercise of caution and conscience, have exercised their inherent authority to use outside experts and have engaged in elaborate Daubert inquiries in 1311*1311 an effort to sort out conflicting scientific opinions in a comprehensive search for reliability and relevance.

Cited 419 times
Rheumatology Autoimmune diseases Implants (medicine) Anatomical pathology Medical terminology 

  Norris v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 2/8/2005
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

After conducting a Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), inquiry[2], the district court excluded both experts because they were unreliable. ... Although "[t]rained experts commonly extrapolate from existing data," neither Daubert nor the Federal Rules of Evidence "require[] a district court to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert."

Cited 128 times
Medical terminology Rheumatology Autoimmune diseases Accounting terminology Breast surgery 

  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 

  Meister v. Medical Engineering Corp. - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 10/26/2001
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Under Daubert, the district court is required to address two questions, first whether the expert's testimony is based on "scientific knowledge," and second, whether the testimony "will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue." ... The defendants thereafter moved to exclude or limit the testimony of Meister's expert witnesses on causation, pursuant to Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703.

Cited 39 times
Rheumatology Medical terminology Autoimmune diseases Plate tectonics Mucinoses 

  Cabrera v. Cordis Corp. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 1/29/1998
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Daubert, the Supreme Court held that the test for admitting scientific expert testimony under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923), which required that a scientific technique be "generally accepted" as reliable in the scientific community, was superseded by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence. ... The district court excluded the testimony of Cabrera's expert witnesses under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and granted summary judgment to Cordis.

Cited 28 times
Autoimmune diseases Implants (medicine) Silicones Allergology Medical specialties 

  Macsenti v. Becker - 10th Circuit

Decided: 1/22/2001
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Defendant's first argument is that the district court committed error by admitting expert evidence on the contested issue of causation without first having made threshold determinations that the testimony was reliable and would be helpful to the jurors, an argument based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... It is true that in Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1995), the First Circuit observed that "[w]e think Daubert does instruct district courts to conduct a preliminary assessment of the reliability of expert testimony, even in the absence of an objection.

Cited 27 times
Psychoactive drugs Bullying Stress Respiratory physiology Unsolved problems in neuroscience 

  Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 12/14/2000
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, expert testimony is admissible if (1) the expert is qualified to testify competently, (2) the expert has used sufficiently reliable methodology in reaching a conclusion, and (3) the testimony will assist the trier of fact. ... Ms. Toole first responds that Baxter did not properly preserve this issue, arguing that objections which had been made in limine were not renewed at trial and that objections to certain questions posed to the expert witnesses during trial were insufficient to preserve their Daubert objections.

Cited 18 times
Implants (medicine) 

  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) 

  Arnold v. Garlock, Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 12/28/2001

The Sixth Circuit has held that the denial of a motion to transfer under § 157(b)(5) is immediately appealable on different grounds including a less rigid view of the "finality" requirement for bankruptcy judgments and under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). ... Garlock contends that a transfer of venue to the District of Delaware would obtain "a `centralized,' `efficient,' cost-effective application of a uniform, fair system for assessing and compensating asbestos-related claimants" under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) and the automatic stay feature of 11 U.S.C. § 362, "to avoid unnecessary repetition, confusion, inconsistent results in multiple trials of common issues, cost or delay where these many cases do not have to be multiplied."[14]

Cited 1 times
Automotive industry Implants (medicine) Prosthetics Breast surgery