Opinion ID: 1495900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Necessity of Controlled Studies.

Text: The Board argues that, even if Daubert for which section 490.065 [14] is interpolatedprovides the standards for admission of expert testimony, the testimony of Dr. McDonagh's experts should have been excluded because controlled studies supporting use of chelation therapy to treat vascular disease do not exist. Nothing in section 490.065 expressly requires such studies. The Board cites to no case decided under section 490.065 requiring that an expert opinion be supported by controlled studies in order to be admissible. To the contrary, section 490.065.3 states that an expert's opinion is admissible if the facts or data on which the opinion is based are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and are otherwise reasonably reliable. Controlled studies are a form of data. Therefore, the admissibility of an expert's opinion depends not on some immutable, external standardsuch as the presence of controlled studiesbut on whether experts in the particular field can reasonably rely on other types of data in forming their opinions, or whether in that field controlled studies are required. But, the AMA has suggested that controlled studies must be done before chelation therapy will be generally recognized as effective. See AMA, AMA Policy Compendium H-175.994 (1994) supra. Of course, section 490.065.3 also imposes an independent duty on the court to determine whether the facts and data relied on are otherwise reasonably reliable. The lack of controlled studies presumably would be relevant, but not necessarily dispositive, in making this determination. This is consistent with the approach under Daubert and FRE 703. Daubert says that whether the theory is or can be tested as a controlled study would dois merely one factor, albeit an important one, in determining its admissibility. 509 U.S. at 593-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786. As applied here, it was up to the AHC to consider Dr. McDonagh's experts' testimony, along with the other evidence offered on the issue, and determine whether experts in the field could reasonably rely on the data those experts relied on in reaching their conclusions about the use of chelation therapy. Because of the confusion in the cases in regard to the standard for admission of expert testimony, the AHC did not apply these standards in evaluating the expert testimony offered. On remand, the AHC may permit the parties to supplement the record with additional expert testimony addressing the issues relevant under the statute.