Junk Science

Publication of Appellate Decision on Expert Testimony
Lockheed Litigation Cases [Aguilar, et al. v. ExxonMobil Corp., et al.]
No. S132167
California Supreme Court

Rejecting NCLC’s request, the California Supreme Court declined to publish the California Court of Appeal’s decision, which clarified the trial court’s duty to exclude expert testimony which lacked a proper foundation.  California does not allow litigants to cite unpublished opinions in state courts.  When it granted review, the California Supreme Court automatically depublished the Court of Appeal’s beneficial decision.  NCLC had filed a brief on the merits pressing the California Supreme Court to uphold the lower court decision by ensuring the reliability of expert witness testimony (in cases involving non-novel scientific methods) by applying the rigorous evidentiary standard announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, but the California Supreme Court dismissed the case on conflicts of interest grounds.

Amicus brief on the merits filed 10/7/05.  Decision 11/1/07.  Amicus letter in support of publication filed 11/5/07.  Decision 12/12/07.

View brief

Admissibility of Expert Testimony to Prove Causation
Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., et al.
No. 107
New York Court of Appeals

New York's highest court affirmed that plaintiffs must submit more than an expert's conclusory and subjective assertions to establish causation.  While the court declined to apply its test articulated in Frye v. United States, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, it reiterated that there must be an appropriate foundation laid for expert testimony, like all other testimony.  In this case, the expert did not, in any way, quantify the level of benzene exposure suffered by the plaintiff, nor did the expert explain the connection between the level of exposure and the condition the plaintiff incurred.  In its brief, NCLC argued that establishing a connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury has become too complicated for lay juries to evaluate an expert's scientific opinion without the help of the courts – acting as gatekeepers – to screen out unreliable testimony presented by unqualified witnesses.

Amicus brief filed 6/15/06.  Oral argument held 9/05/06.  Decision 10/17/06.

View brief       View decision



Reliability of Expert Testimony under Daubert
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Miller
No. 124
Court of Appeals of Maryland

NCLC urges the highest court in the State to bring Maryland up-to-date by reaffirming that reliability is the sine qua non of all expert testimony, instructing that the trial courts must serve as gatekeepers to keep unreliable expert evidence from the jury, and announcing a uniform test or standard for reliability, based on the seminal 1993 Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Amicus brief in support of the Petitioner filed 2/22/05.

View brief