Which Gate Do I Enter? Expert Admissibility Standards Far From Uniform

  In August, the New Jersey Supreme Court released its opinion in In Re: Accutane Litigation, which as fans of expert-admissibility standards will know essentially moved New Jersey into the column of states that apply a Daubert-based test, rather an a Frye-based test, in evaluating the admissibility of scientific and expert testimony. For anyone who has not yet seen the opinion, a copy can be found here. (Note – it is lengthy, so get a full cup of coffee before you sit…
Continue reading...

Illinois Federal Court Considers Whether Plaintiff Expert’s Methodologies Were Sufficiently Reliable under Daubert in a Pharmaceutical Case

GlaxoSmithKline has attempted to knock out the plaintiff’s experts in Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline, in its latest round of Daubert motions. Wendy Dolin is suing GSK after the suicide death of her prominent lawyer husband, who had been taking the generic form of Paxil, paroxetine, an antidepressant.  This case made national news just a year ago when Judge Zagel of the Northern District of Illinois held that GSK could be liable for Dolin’s death under a negligence theory, not a product liability theory, even though…
Continue reading...

Zoloft MDL Excludes on Daubert Grounds Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Opinions on General Causation

Last month the Pennsylvania federal judge presiding over the multi-district litigation in which the plaintiffs allege that the prescription anti-depressant Zoloft, taken during pregnancy, causes birth defects, issued another in an series of Daubert rulings on the plaintiffs’ proposed experts as to general causation. Although the defendant conceded the qualifications of the three research scientists whose expert evidence was being tested, the reliability of their general causation opinions was hotly contested and received a full evidentiary hearing. The Zoloft court’s rulings represent an important addition…
Continue reading...

Eleventh Circuit Rejects Plaintiff’s Expert Evidence on Daubert Grounds

An important and interesting Daubert opinion was issued yesterday by the 11th Circuit which affirmed the trial court’s Daubert preclusion order against the plaintiff’s experts in litigation seeking to prove that the use of a denture adhesive causes neurological disease.  The decision sets forth the infirmities in the plaintiffs’ expert evidence under Daubert standards. This blog post will be short and reportorial, rather than analytic, because the authors have worked extensively for the defense in the denture cream litigation, and on the Chapman case itself,…
Continue reading...

Court Refuses to Scrutinize the Sufficiency of Differential Diagnosis Analysis and Permits Causation Testimony in Absence of Controlled Studies

This past week, an Ohio federal court considered under Daubert the standard by which specific causation experts in drug and device cases are to be scrutinized. While the Court precluded the opinions of certain experts who did not engage in a differential diagnosis analysis before forming specific causation opinions, it stopped short of precluding one expert who engaged in what was essentially an incomplete differential diagnosis analysis, concluding the sufficiency of the analysis goes to the weight of the evidence and not its reliability under…
Continue reading...