Showing results 1-5 of 5.


  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 

  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 

  Stilwell v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 4/11/2007
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

She argues that the district court erred by barring the expert testimony of a metallurgist, Arun Kumar, Ph.D., under Federal 1189*1189 Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and its progeny. ... Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits testimony by experts qualified by "knowledge, skill, expertise, training, or education" to testify "in the form of an opinion or otherwise" based on "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" if that knowledge will "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."

Cited 34 times
Metallurgy Anatomical pathology Orthopedics Medical specialties Medical doctors by specialty 

  Ruffin v. Shaw Industries, Inc. - 4th Circuit

Decided: 7/16/1998
District Court Decision: Excluded

Following discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment and also filed a motion to strike the testimony of two of plaintiffs' experts, Dr. Rosalind C. Anderson, Ph.D. and Dr. Allan D. Lieberman, M.D. The district court granted defendants motion to strike the affidavit and testimony of Dr. Anderson on the grounds that her testimony was inadmissible under F.R.E. 702 and the reliability prong of the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... Defendants move to strike the affidavit and testimony of plaintiffs' experts, Dr. Rosalind C. Anderson and Dr. Allan D. Lieberman. Defendants assert that pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 56(e), the court cannot consider these affidavits in adjudicating their summary judgment motion because the designated experts state opinions not admissible under F.R.E. 702 and the standard recently established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

Cited 14 times
Toxicology Anatomical pathology 

  Skwira v. US - 1st Circuit

Decided: 9/15/2003

Hence the government was obliged to invest significant resources to develop adequate epinephrine testing protocols and research methodologies which, if used at trial, would ultimately have to withstand Daubert scrutiny.[5] ... This makes the present case highly unusual: normally, as in Kubrick itself, one whom suspicions prompt to consult an expert or a lawyer can usually get a good fix on liability within a reasonably brief period.

Cited 1 times
Accounting terminology Medical terminology Burials Death customs Anatomical pathology