Opinion ID: 1263593
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of expert testimony on medical causation

Text: Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence controls the admissibility of all types of expert testimony. The rule provides as follows: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. According to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), a district court's task in assessing evidence proffered under Rule 702 is to determine whether the evidence both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand. Id. at 597, 113 S.Ct. 2786. The district court must consider whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid. Id. at 592-93, 113 S.Ct. 2786. Daubert attempts to strike a balance between a liberal admissibility standard for relevant evidence on the one hand and the need to exclude misleading junk science on the other. See Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 267 (2d Cir.2002). There is no definitive checklist or test for striking this balance, but the Supreme Court in Daubert set forth a number of factors that typically bear on the inquiry. 509 U.S. at 593, 113 S.Ct. 2786. These include whether the theory or technique in question can be (and has been) tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, whether it has a known or potential rate of error, and finally, whether the theory or technique enjoys general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. Id. at 594, 113 S.Ct. 2786. The Rule 702 inquiry is a flexible one, and [t]he focus. . . must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate. Id. at 594-95, 113 S.Ct. 2786. An expert who presents testimony must employ[ ] in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999).