Do you spend hours debating the relative merits of Frye vs. Daubert?
Or are you just interested in a big fat Venetian Salami?
Either way you are a policy wonk and will therefore love Judge Shepherd's analysis of the differences in today's 3d DCA Watch:
Perez v. BellSouth:
Opinion in a nutshell -- using either test the plaintiff's expert was excludable:
Osmany Anthony Perez, a minor, by and through his mother and next friend, Maria Franco Perez, appeals an adverse summary judgment in a negligence case rendered after the trial court struck the only medical expert testimony linking his premature birth, resulting surgeries, and developmental deficits to workplace stress. The workplace stress arose from the alleged failure of Maria’s employer, Bell South Telecommunications, Inc., to limit her work hours to forty hours a week and allow frequent bathroom breaks. The trial court found the testimony to be inadmissible under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). Since then, the Florida Legislature has amended the Florida Evidence Code to employ the United States Supreme Court’s more recently promulgated “Daubert test,” to gauge the admissibility of expert testimony in the stead of the older “Frye test.” After obtaining supplemental briefing from the parties on the applicability of the Daubert test to the facts of this case, we find affirmance would be in order under either the former or more recently adopted statutory test.Plus a little philosophy lesson:
Dr. Cardella’s proposed testimony is inadmissible under Daubert. Dr. Cardella had never before related a placental abruption to workplace stress and knew of no one who had. There is no scientific support for his opinion. The opinion he proffers is a classic example of the common fallacy of assuming causality from temporal sequence.Question -- can pundits and politicians be excluded from my TV on the same grounds?
Du Pont v. Sidran:
They say justice should be swift and sure, but this case has been pending since 1992!
So twenty-two years later, there has been a development:
The order on appeal is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for an expedited trial on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims with no further amendments and no additional discovery to be permitted.Expedited?
I'm waiting for the 25th anniversary!