Opinion ID: 657211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Daubert Opinion

Text: 27 We agree with the district court that expert testimony is necessary to determine the cause of Mr. Porter's renal failure. We further agree that, to be considered in a motion for summary judgment, the testimony must be admissible. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (Supporting and opposing affidavits shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence....). The Supreme Court recently addressed the admissibility of scientific evidence in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Therefore, we look to Daubert for guidance in determining the admissibility of the expert testimony offered by the plaintiff. 28 In Daubert, plaintiffs in a strict liability action sought to introduce expert testimony that their mothers' ingestion of Bendectin during pregnancy caused their birth defects. Although many epidemiological studies failed to link the two, plaintiffs' experts claimed that there was a link based on in vitro and in vivo testing, on studies of the chemical structure of Bendectin, and on the reanalysis of previously published epidemiological studies. The district court applied the Frye test. See Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923). Because the principle on which the opinions were based was not sufficiently established to have general acceptance in the field to which it belongs, the district court ruled the testimony inadmissible. The appellate court affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed. 29 The Court held that the test enunciated in Frye, which required the use of generally accepted methods, 3 has been superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules provide the governing standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court began its analysis by focusing on the language of Rule 702. 4 It found the rule clearly anticipated some degree of regulation of the subjects and theories about which an expert may testify. Daubert, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2795. 30 The adjective scientific implies a grounding in the methods and procedures of science. Similarly, the word knowledge connotes more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation. The term applies to any body of known facts or to any body of ideas from such facts or accepted as truths on good grounds. 31 Id. (citations omitted). The testimony need not be known to a certainty; however, 32 in order to qualify as scientific knowledge, an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. Proposed testimony must be supported by appropriate validation--i.e., good grounds, based on what is known. In short, the requirement that an expert's testimony pertain to scientific knowledge establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability. 33 Id. The Court continued by noting that, in determining whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge, a key question will be whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested. Another relevant consideration is whether the theory or technique is subject to peer review and publication. 5 Especially in the case of a scientific technique, the Court continued, a district court ordinarily ought to consider the known or potential error rate. Although Frye is no longer controlling, general acceptance can still have a bearing on the inquiry as to whether the knowledge is scientific. Widespread acceptance by the scientific community is relevant in considering reliability. Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2797. A known technique that has gained only a minimal following may be viewed with some skepticism. 34 Furthermore, the Court continued, Rule 702 requires that testimony assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. Fed.R.Evid. 702. This, the Court explained, is essentially a relevance inquiry.  'Expert testimony which does not relate to an issue in the case is not relevant, and, ergo, nonhelpful.'  Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2795 (quoting 3 Jack Weinstein & Margaret Berger, Weinstein's Evidence p 702. Thus, Rule 702's 'helpfulness' standard requires a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility. Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2796. The Court summarized its holding by writing: 35 Faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, then, the trial judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. 36 Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2796 (footnotes omitted). 37 Because the court of appeals and the district court had focused their inquiries entirely on the general acceptance test, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings.