What has a decade of Daubert wrought?

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 95, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2005, Pages

  Berger, Margaret A ^a  

^a BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COURT; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; JUSTICE; LAW; LAW SUIT; POLICY; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; SCIENCE;

DRUG INDUSTRY; EXPERT TESTIMONY; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC POLICY; SCIENCE; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 22744457980     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.044701     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579 (1999).
2. Mueller CB. Daubert asks the right questions: now appellate courts should help find the right answer. Seton Hall Law Rev. 2003;33:987-1023.
3. Huber PW. Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1993.
4. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579, 585 (1993).
5. Frye v United States, 293 F 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
6. Barrett PM. Justices rule against business in evidence case. Wall Street Journal. July 29, 1993:A3.
7. Greenhouse L. Justices put judges in charge of deciding reliability of scientific testimony. Wall Street Journal. July 29, 1993:A13.
8. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 43 F3d 1311 (9th Cir 1995).
9. Carmichael v Samyang Tire, Inc, 131 F3d 1433,1435 (11th Cir 1997), cert. granted sub nom. Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael, 524 US 936 (1998), reversed 526 US 137 (1999).
10. Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137,150 (1999).
11. Denbeaux MP, Risinger DM. Kumho Tire and expert reliability: how the question you ask gives the answer you get. Seton Hall Law Rev. 2003;34:15.
12. Gatowski SI, Dobbin SA, Richardson JT, Ginsburg GP, Merino ML, Dahir V. Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law Hum Behav. 2001; 25:433-458.
13. Peer Review Congress IV: A JAMA Theme Issue (edited by Rennie D, Flanagan A). JAMA. 2002;287: 2749-2898.
14. Green MD, Freedman DM, Gordis L. Reference guide on epidemiology. In: Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center; 2000.
15. Cohen NB. The gatekeeping role in civil litigation and the abdication of legal values in favor of scientific values. Seton Hall Law Rev. 2003;33:943,949-954.
16. Kassirer JP, Cecil JS. Inconsistency in evidentiary standards for medical testimony. JAMA. 2002;288: 1382-1387.
17. Wagner WE. Importing Daubert to administrative agencies through the Information Quality Act. J Law Policy. 2004;12:589-617.
18. See APHA Interim Policy Statement LB03-1 (2003) on Threats to Public Health Science, Application of Supreme Court Decisions. Available at: http://www.apha.org/legislative. Accessed June 16, 2005.
19. Berger MA. Eliminating general causation: notes towards a new theory of justice and toxic torts. Columbia Law Rev. 1997;97:2117-2152.
20. Berenson A. Trial lawyers are now focusing on lawsuits against drug makers. New York Times. May 18, 2003:A1.
21. Bogdanich W, Koli E. 2 Paths of Bayer Drugs in 80's: riskier one steered overseas. New York Times. May 22, 2003:A2.
22. Desiano v Warner Lambert Co, 326 F3d 339 (2d Cir 2003).
23. Desiano v Warner Lambert Co, 326 F3d 339, 344 (2003).
24. Desiano v Warner Lambert Co, 326 F3d 339, 342 (2003).
25. See, for example, United States v Saelee, 162 FSupp2d 1097 (D Alaska 2001); United States v Fuji, 152 FSupp2d 939 (ND Ill 2000). Contra: United States v Prime, 220 FSupp2d 1203 (WD Wash 2002).
26. See Zabell SL. Fingerprint evidence. J Law Policy. 2005;13:143-179.
27. Krafka C, Dunn M, Johnson MT, Cecil, JS, Miletich D. Judge and attorney experience, practices, and concerns regarding expert testimony in federal civil trials. Psych Public Policy Law. 2002;8:309-332.
28. Dixon L, Gill B. Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the Daubert decision. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND Institute for Civil Justice; 2001.
29. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 43 F3d 1311,1317 (9th Cir 1993).
30. Weisgram v Marley, 528 US 440 (2000).
31. Weisgram v Marley, 528 US 440, 455 (2000).
32. Winter G. Jury awards soar as lawsuits decline on defective goods. New York Times. January 30, 2001:A1.
33. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co v Zenith Radio Corp, 475 US 574 (1986); Anderson v Liberty Lobby, Inc, 477 US 342 (1986); Celotex Corp v Catrett, 477 US 317 (1986).