Court Opinion

ID: 9646215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:52:58.812627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:35.370587
License: Public Domain

SPECTOR, Justice,
concurring.
The Court today fails to heed its own warning that “the examination of a scientific study by a cadre of lawyers is not the same as its examination by others trained in the field of science or medicine.” 953 S.W.2d at 727 (internal citations omitted). I agree that the Havners’ expert witness testimony is not legally sufficient evidence of causation. However, as a judge, and not a scientist, I am uncomfortable with the majority’s ambitious scientific analysis and its unnecessarily expansive application of the Daubert standard. The majority’s opinion, replete with dicta, gives courts no practical guidance outside the context of Bendectin litigation. Accordingly, I concur only in the judgment of the Court.