lexisONE
LOGIN REGISTER
REGISTER
 
Customer Support|Your Account & Subscriptions|About lexisONE
LexisNexis® Research
for Small Firms
 
Forms
 
LexisNexis® Bookstore
 
LexisNexis® Mealey's
Online Publications
 
 
Headline Legal News
 
Balancing Life and Practice
 
New Attorneys
 
Legal Web Site Directory
 
Lawyer Locator
 
LexisNexis® Professional
Development Center
 
LexisWeb

 

Headline Legal News

Experts Excluded In Asbestos Case, After Defendants DaimlerChrysler And Volkswagen Win Bid For Frye Hearing



Mealey Publications
Aug. 30, 2006


PITTSBURGH — Two plaintiffs’ experts in asbestos friction products litigation did not rely on generally accepted methods in concluding that every exposure to asbestos products is a proximate cause of asbestos-related disease, a judge said Aug. 17 in excluding the testimony (Re: Toxic Substances Cases>AD 03-319, Pa. Comm. Pls., Allegheny Co.).
More from Mealeys.com

Defendants DaimlerChrysler Corp. and Volkswagen of America filed a motion for a Frye hearing. Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Robert J. Colville ordered a handful of representative cases to be selected for purposes of the hearing. Drs. David Laman and John Maddox submitted non-case-specific expert reports.

Following an extensive Frye hearing in October and after reviewing voluminous scientific literature and legal authorities, Judge Colville concluded that the experts’ testimony was not based on a verified, tested or reviewed methodology and was instead the product of their “best estimate,” “gut instinct” or “educated guess.” He found that the experts relied largely on case reports. Such reliance alone, without support of some other methodology short of empirical verification, does not support the experts’ conclusions, the judge said.

Laman and Maddox did not rely on any actual quantity or quality of exposure suffered by any specific plaintiff, the judge noted. Dose response curves have been generated for high-exposure cases. Judge Colville said Maddox and Laman had to extrapolate down from the high-exposure dose curve to arrive at their conclusion that even exposure to small amounts can cause disease. The judge found that this methodology was not generally accepted.

The judge reiterated that Pennsylvania law requires actual causation and injury. It is insufficient to simply show increased risk of injury.

Copyright 2006, LexisNexis, Division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


Headline Legal News
News Archive

  
LexisNexis
     www.lexisnexis.com
Customer Support  Browse Federal Case Law  Browse State Case Law  Site Map  Contact Us 
Terms & Conditions    Privacy    Copyright  
© 2008 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.