Twitter LinkedIn Share this page Facebook RSS

Blogs

Product Liability Law BlogLegal updates, news, and commentary from the attorneys of Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC

In a differential etiology, experts need not rule out all possible causes

June 23, 2014 | Bryan Mouber

In Johnson v. Mead Johnson & Co., LLC (No. 13-1685), 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 10541 (8th Cir. June 6, 2014), the court reaffirmed the applicability of the Daubert standard to both the “ruling in” and “ruling out” process of differential etiology, the process by which an expert determines the cause of an injury. In passing, the Eighth Circuit noted that "a differential diagnosis is a tested methodology, has been subjected to peer review/publication, does not frequently lead to incorrect results, and is generally accepted in the medical community."  Thus, the differential etiology and diagnosis in general pass muster under the four considerations identified in Daubert:

(1) whether the scientific technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and/or publication; (3) the known rate of error for the technique or theory and the applicable standards for operation; and (4) whether the technique is generally accepted.

The key inquiry in admissibility is whether the experts’ methodology is reliable enough to assist the trier of fact. In this case, all of the experts in the case agreed the experts properly “ruled in” the product at issue as a likely cause of the injury based on published studies by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

The District Court found that two proffered experts did not “efficaciously rule out” other plausible sources of injury. However, the Eighth Circuit held that experts “are not required to rule out all possible causes when performing the differential etiology analysis.” Instead, such considerations “go the weight to be given the testimony by the fact finder, not its admissibility.” Thus, the Eighth Circuit admitted all of the expert testimony and reversed the district court’s granting of summary judgment. The full opinion may be found here.

Subscribe
About Product Liability Law Blog

The BSCR Product Liability Blog examines significant developments, trends, and topics in product liability law of interest to individuals and product manufacturers, distributors and sellers. Learn more about the editor, David E. Eisenberg,  and our Product Liability practice.

DISCLAIMER

The Product Liability Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Product Liability Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Product Liability Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.