Showing results 1-6 of 6.


  McClain v. Metabolife Intern., Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 3/2/2005
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

1237*1237 Before trial Metabolife moved to exclude Plaintiffs' experts' testimony on medical causation asserting that Plaintiffs' experts' opinions lacked a reliable foundation for admission under the standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... This type of proof requires expert testimony, and when a party offers expert testimony and the opposing party raises a Daubert challenge, the trial court must "make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field."

Cited 170 times
Occupational diseases Medical terminology Stroke Epidemiology Sympathomimetics 

  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 

  Glastetter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 6/8/2001
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Glastetter's experts rely upon animal studies to prove that bromocriptine causes vasoconstriction, which, in turn, could have caused an ICH. But during the Daubert hearing, Dr. Petro admitted that not a single animal study had ever concluded that ICH was associated with bromocriptine. ... If her contention were accurate, we would likely reverse, for a plaintiff need not introduce epidemiological evidence of causation in order to satisfy Daubert's threshold for admission of expert medical testimony.

Cited 100 times
Medical terminology Cardiovascular physiology 

  Rider v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 6/24/2002
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The district court held that the plaintiffs' expert testimony was not sufficiently reliable 1196*1196 to meet the standards established by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and granted summary judgment in favor of Sandoz. ... We have reviewed the opinion, noted a problem or two with the opinion itself, considered the arguments in the briefs of both appellants and amici, and reviewed the record, and conclude that under an unmodified application of the Daubert trilogy, a proper consideration of every piece of evidence offered, and a study of the expert opinions themselves, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the admission of the testimony of the five expert witnesses offered by the plaintiffs to prove causation in this case.

Cited 83 times
Cardiovascular physiology Stroke Concepts in epistemology 

  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 

  Johnson v. Mead Johnson & Co., LLC - 8th Circuit

Decided: 6/6/2014
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

While we adhere to this discretionary standard for review of the district court's Rule 702 gatekeeping decision, cases are legion that, correctly, under Daubert, call for the liberal admission of expert testimony. ... Daubert and Rule 702 thus greatly liberalized what had been the strict Frye standards for admission of expert scientific testimony.

Cited 23 times
Infancy Medical specialties Medical terminology Pediatrics Cardiovascular physiology