Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

26 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

Opinion of the Court 

C 
Petitioners’  remaining  arguments  about  midazolam  all
lack  merit.    First,  we  are  not  persuaded  by  petitioners’ 
argument  that  Dr.  Evans’  testimony  should  have  been
rejected because of some of the sources listed in his report. 
Petitioners  criticize  two  of  the  “selected  references”  that 
Dr.  Evans  cited  in  his  expert  report:  the  Web  site
drugs.com and a material safety data sheet (MSDS) about
midazolam.    Petitioners’  argument  is  more  of  a  Daubert 
challenge to Dr. Evans’ testimony than an argument that
the  District  Court’s  findings  were  clearly  erroneous.    The 
District  Court  concluded  that  Dr.  Evans  was  “well-
qualified  to  give  the  expert  testimony  that  he  gave”  and
that  “his  testimony  was  the  product  of  reliable  principles 
and  methods  reliably  applied  to  the  facts  of  this  case.”
App.  75–76.  To  the  extent  that  the  reliability  of  Dr. 
Evans’ testimony is even before us, the District Court’s con-
clusion that his testimony was based on reliable sources is 
reviewed  under 
“abuse-of-discretion” 
standard.  General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U. S. 136, 142– 
143 (1997).  Dr. Evans relied on multiple sources and his
own  expertise,  and  his  testimony  may  not  be  disqualified 
simply  because  one  source  (drugs.com)  warns  that  it  “ ‘is 
not intended for medical advice’ ” and another (the MSDS) 
states that its information is provided “ ‘without any war-
ranty,  express  or  implied,  regarding  its  correctness.’ ”  
Brief  for  Petitioners  36.  Medical  journals  that  both  par-
ties  rely  upon  typically  contain  similar  disclaimers.    See, 
e.g.,  Anesthesiology,  Terms  and  Conditions  of  Use,  online 
at 
http://anesthesiology.pubs.asahq.org/ss/terms.aspx 
(“None  of  the  information  on  this  Site  shall  be  used  to 
diagnose  or  treat  any  health  problem  or  disease”).    Dr. 
Lubarsky—petitioners’ own expert—relied on an MSDS to 
argue that midazolam has a ceiling effect.  And petitioners
do  not  identify  any  incorrect  statements  from  drugs.com
on  which  Dr.  Evans  relied.    In  fact,  although  Dr.  Sasich 

the  deferential