Opinion ID: 1751837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dr. Waddell's Opinions Have Sufficient Scientific Basis to be Offered.

Text: In determining whether an expert's opinion testimony based on a review of literature should be admitted, other courts have considered not only the individual's qualifications, but also whether a sufficient scientific basis exists for their opinion: Where proffered expert testimony is not based on independent research, but instead on such a literature review, the party proffering such testimony must come forward with other objective, verifiable evidence that the testimony is based on scientifically valid principles. One means of showing this is by proof that the research and analysis supporting the proffered conclusions have been subjected to normal scientific scrutiny through peer review and publication. [23] Where the expert has not conducted independent research on the specific issue in dispute, his opinions may still be sufficiently scientifically valid if supported by objective sources: Establishing that an expert's proffered testimony grows out of pre-litigation research or that the expert's research has been subjected to peer review are the two principal ways the proponent of expert testimony can show that the evidence satisfies the first prong of Rule 702. Where such evidence is unavailable, the proponent of expert scientific testimony may attempt to satisfy its burden through the testimony of its own experts. For such a showing to be sufficient, the experts must explain precisely how they went about reaching their conclusions and point to some objective sourcea learned treatise, the policy statement of a professional association, a published article in a reputable scientific journal or the liketo show that they have followed the scientific method, as it is practiced by (at least) a recognized minority of scientists in their field. [24] Despite Dr. Waddell's apparent lack of independent research on TE or the specific question of solvent exposure causing cognitive impairment, the conclusions he reached from reviewing the relevant literaturethat studies of this subject were flawed and do not conclusively establish a causal relationshipare nonetheless backed up by at least one scientific objective source showing that his conclusions are not totally inconsistent with the scientific method. [25] That objective source is found in the NIOSH (National Institute of Occupational, Safety & Health) RFA (request for application), which shows that at least a minority of scientists were concerned with the validity of the prior studies. Dr. Waddell also cited one particular study (the Gade study) that cast doubt on other studies finding a causative link between occupational solvent exposure and cognitive impairment. According to Burton's brief, this study merely concluded that a group of painters who had previously been exposed to solvents and diagnosed with [TE] using non-standardized testing, did not have the disease based upon subsequent standardized neuropsychological testing. According to Dr. Waddell's deposition, the Gade study discounted the value of earlier studies finding a positive causal link by finding no difference in levels of cognitive impairment once they controlled for age, IQ, and educational level. In sum, the Gade study cast doubt on some other studies finding a causal link between solvent exposure and cognitive impairment. Certainly, a trial court as the gatekeeper should exclude a so-called expert's unsupported assertions, the so-called expert's ipse dixit, from reviewing literature. [26] But under the facts of this case, Dr. Waddell's opinion appears to have at least some support in the scientific community as shown by published requests for further studies with more controls and the Gade study. We recognize that where, as here, an expert is not testifying from the expert's own independent scientific research but has been asked for an opinion for purposes of litigation, the admissibility of his testimony must be carefully scrutinized. [27] But where, as here, the expert is highly qualified in relevant specific fields of study; and the expert's opinions or conclusions are supported by objective sources showing compliance with the scientific method, as practiced by (at least) a recognized minority of scientists in their field[,] [28] the evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted in court so long as it is relevant.