Appeals court affirms opinion of district court that experts’ testimony was not scientifically reliable. However, the court does set precedent on differential diagnoses to support general and specific causation.
Insurance expert’s testimony in breach of contract and bad faith action were partially allowed (based on industry customs and practice) and partially denied (based on pronouncements of law).
A lower court ruling excluded two neurologists as experts who were called on to testify on ALS being caused by a traumatic event. The court confirmed one exclusion, but overturned the other.
Plaintiff’s expert witness testified on the standard of care in the performance of a cervico-cerebral angiogram. After a challenge, the testimony was said to establish an element of causation. Continue reading