Pennsylvania Supreme Court Reaffirms Fealty to Frye Standard

Although our nation and our courts are still very much in the midst of addressing the acute aspects and effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, there will come a time when our courts return to more “normal” operations. It is likely that this will coincide with an influx of new litigation relating to COVID-19 claims of many kinds, including, of course, personal injury and, tragically, wrongful death claims. For many of those claims, the use of experts and expert testimony to address issues of causation will…
Continue reading...

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...

“Symptom Threshold Methodology” Rejected by Court of Appeals of New York Pursuant to Frye

In an opinion decided February 11, 2016, the Court of Appeals of New York precluded two causation experts put forth by a plaintiff in a toxic tort case. The case involved allegations that a minor was born with severe mental and physical disabilities caused by in utero exposure to unleaded gasoline vapor. The vapor was allegedly emitted into the car from a defective fuel hose. The automobile manufacturer subsequently recalled the vehicle at issue due to defects in the feed fuel hoses. In support of…
Continue reading...