Daubert and the proper role for the courts in health, safety, and environmental regulation

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 95, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2005, Pages

  McGarity, Thomas O ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b Center for Community Progress   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COURT; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; EXPERT WITNESS; GOVERNMENT; JURISPRUDENCE; LAW; POLICY; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; SCIENCE;

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; EXPERT TESTIMONY; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC POLICY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENCE; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 22744440655     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.044545     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. 5 USC §553.
2. 5 USC §702.
3. See Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology & Government. Risk and the Environment: Improving Regulatory Decisionmaking. New York, NY: Carnegie; 1993;
4. Jasanoff S. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1990;
5. Latin H. Good science, bad regulation, and toxic risk assessment. Yale J Reg. 1998;5:89-148;
6. Majone G. Science and trans-science in standard setting. Sci Tech Hum Values. 1984;9:15-22;
7. Scmandt J. Regulation and science. Sci Tech Hum Values. 1984;9: 23-38.
8. Krimsky S. The 'weight-of-scientific-evidence' in policy and law. AJPH (this issue).
9. Powell MR. Science at EPA: Information in the Regulatory Process. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 1999.
10. Environmental Protection Agency. Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions, Report of the Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA. Washington, DC: US EPA; 1992.
11. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: US EPA; 1997;
12. quoted in National Academy of Sciences. Strengthening Science at the US Environmental Protection Agency: Research Management and Peer Review Practices. Washington, DC: US NAS; 2000.
13. McGarity TO, Wagner WE. Legal aspects of the regulatory use of environmental modeling. Environ Law Rep. 2003;33:10751-10774.
14. Feldman HL. Science and uncertainty in mass exposure litigation. Texas Law Rev. 1995;74:1-48.
15. Solomon B. Finger-pointing distinguishes attempts to fix blame for liability crisis. Natl J. 1986;18: 378-384;
16. Glen M. Congress joins the hue and cry over liability insurance crisis. Natl J. 1986;18: 380-381.
17. Huber PW. Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1991.
18. Professor Huber's mostly anecdotal accounts were heavily relied upon by the tort reformers, but they were harshly reviewed by academics and practitioners. See Blomquist RF. Science, toxic tort law, and expert evidence: a reaction to Peter Huber. Ark Law Rev. 1991;44:629-653;
19. Chesebro KJ. Peter Huber's junk scholarship. Am Univ Law Rev. 1993;42:1637-1726.
20. President's Council on Competitiveness, Agenda for Civil Justice Reform in America. 1991;11:21-22;
21. reprinted in Quayle D. Agenda for civil justice reform in America. Univ Cinn Law Rev. 1992;60:979-1007
22. Chesebro KJ. Peter Huber's junk scholarship. Am Univ Law Rev. 1993;42:1637-1726;
23. Green, supra note, pp. 19-22.
24. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 (1993);
25. Sanders J. The Bendectin litigation: a case study in the life cycle of mass torts. Hastings Law J. 1992;43:301-418, 391.
26. Beecher-Monas E. The heuristics of intellectual due process: a primer for triers of science. NYU Law Rev. 2000;75:1563-1657, 1637
27. Finley LM. Guarding the gate to the courthouse: how trial judges are using their evidentiary screening role to remake tort causation rules. DePaul Law Rev. 1999;49:335-376, 341-342;
28. Gottesman MH. From Barefoot to Daubert to Joiner: triple play or double error? Ariz Law Rev. 1998;40:753-780, 756-759.
29. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579,593-595 (1993).
30. General Electric Co v Joiner, 522 US 136, 146 (1997).
31. Federal Rules of Evidence 702. The Advisory Committee Notes state that Rule 702 was amended "in response to" Daubert and "to the many cases applying Daubert."
32. McGarity TO. On the prospect of "Daubertizing" judicial review of risk assessment. Law Contemp Prob. 2003;66:155-225;
33. Finley LM. Guarding the gate to the courthouse: how trial judges are using their evidentiary screening role to remake tort causation rules. DePaul Law Rev. 1999;49:335-376, 341-342;
34. Cutler JD. Implications of strict scrutiny of scientific evidence: does Daubert deal a death blow to toxic tort plaintiffs? J Environ Law Litig. 1995;10:189, 214-220;
35. Sanders J. The Bendectin litigation: a case study in the life cycle of mass torts. Hastings Law J. 1992;43:301-418, 391.
36. Brown H. Eight gates for expert witnesses. Hous Law Rev. 1999;36:743-882.
37. Elliott ED, Raul AC, Pierce RJ Jr, McGarity TO, Wagner WE. Science, agencies, and the courts: is three a crowd? Environ Law Rep. 2001;31:10125-10140;
38. Truong DH. Daubert and judicial review: how does an administrative agency distinguish valid science from junk science? Akron Law Rev. 2000;33:365-390;
39. Weller CD, Graham DB. New approaches to environmental law and agency regulation: the Daubert litigation approach. Environ Law Rep. 2000; 30:10557-10573, 10566-10572.
40. Elliott ED, Raul AC, Pierce RJ Jr, McGarity TO, Wagner WE. Science, agencies, and the courts: is three a crowd? Environ Law Rep. 2001;31:10125.
41. McGarity TO. On the prospect of "Daubertizing" judicial review of risk assessment. Law Contemp Prob. 2003;66:155-225.
42. Brown H. Eight gates for expert witnesses. Hous Law Rev. 1999;36:743-882;
43. Gottesman MH. From Barefoot to Daubert to Joiner: triple play or double error? Ariz Law Rev. 1998;40:753-780, 756-759;
44. Beecher-Monas E. The heuristics of intellectual due process: a primer for triers of science. NYU Law Rev. 2000;75:1563-1657, 1637;
45. Finley LM. Guarding the gate to the courthouse: how trial judges are using their evidentiary screening role to remake tort causation rules. DePaul Law Rev. 1999;49:335-376, 341-342;
46. Sanders J. The Bendectin litigation: a case study in the life cycle of mass torts. Hastings Law J. 1992; 43:301-418, 391.
47. At least one post-Daubert court has explicitly rejected an expert's conclusions based on a weight-of-the-evidence approach; see Allen v Pa. Engineering Corp, 102 F3d 194,196-198 (5th Cir 1996).
48. Bonine J, McGarity T. The Law of Environmental Protection: Cases, Legislation, Policies. 2nd ed. St Paul, MN: West, 1992.
49. Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co, 463 US 29,43 (1983).
50. Applegatc JS. The perils of unreasonable risk: information, regulatory policy, and toxic substances control. Columbia Law Rev. 1991;91:261-333;
51. Hornstein DT. Reclaiming environmental law: a normative critique of comparative risk analysis. Columbia Law Rev. 1992; 92:562-633;
52. Wagner WE. The science charade in toxic risk regulation. Columbia Law Rev. 1995;95: 1613-1723.
53. Portland Cement Association v Ruckelshaus, 486 F2d 375, 386 (DC Cir 1973);
54. International Harvester Corp v Ruckelshaus, 478 F2d 615, 633 (DC Cir 1973);
55. Kennecott Copper Corp v EPA, 462 F2d 846, 849 (DC Cir 1972).
56. Public Citizen Health Research Group v Tyson, 796 F2d 1479,1495 (DC Cir 1986).
57. Ethyl Corp v EPA, 541 F2d 1,37-38 (DC Cir 1976) (en banc).
58. McGarity TO. Some thoughts on "deossifying" the rulemaking process. Duke Law J. 1992;41:1385-1462, 1453.
59. Pierce R. Unruly judicial review of rulemaking. Nat Resources Environ. 1990;5:23-50,23-24.
60. Gulf S. Insulation v Consumer Product Safety Commission, 701 F2d 1137 (5th Cir 1983);
61. see also Ashford N., et al. A hard look at federal regulation of formaldehyde: a departure from reasoned decisionmaking. Harv Environ Law Rev. 1983;7:297-370, 368;
62. Latin H. Good science, bad regulation, and toxic risk assessment. Yale J Reg. 1989;5:89-148, 131.
63. The ETS story is recounted in detail in McGarity TO. Daubertizing judicial review. Law Contemp. Prob. 2003;66:155-225, 178-225.
64. McGarity TO. Deflecting the assault: how EPA survived a "disorganized revolution" by "reinventing" itself a bit. Environ Law Rep. 2001;31:11249-11265;
65. Buzbee WW. Regulatory reform or statutory muddle: the "legislative mirage" of single statute regulatory reform. NYU Environ Law J. 1996;5:298-381.