Daubert v Merrell Dow
- 22 December 1993
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA)
- Vol. 270 (24) , 2964-2967
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1993.03510240076036
Abstract
ON JUNE 28, 1993, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision that, in the words of one commentator, "could affect almost every piece of litigation in the Federal courts from this point forward."1The decision inDaubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals2sets forth criteria that federal courts must follow in admitting scientific evidence or excluding it from consideration by juries. While the decision will not apply directly to state courts, states are likely to look to the High Court for guidance. This article will analyze the decision and discuss its implications for medicine, medical publishing, and expert testimony. THE CASE The drug for morning sickness, Bendectin (doxylamine), was driven off the market in 1983 by the pressure of lawsuits asserting that it caused birth defects. Before Bendectin was taken off the market, millions of women had used it.3Of 30 published epidemiologic studies involving over 130Keywords
This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit:
- Supreme Court to Weigh ScienceScience, 1993
- The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century LaterColumbia Law Review, 1980