New York's Appellate Division, 2nd Department has adopted a relaxed standard for determining whether expert testimony should be allowed to establish causation in a medical malpractice case. The panel warned that too strict an application of the Daubert test for admissibility of scientific testimony could bar users of a new drug "from obtaining redress" for injuries caused by "the dangerous properties of the drug or inappropriate treatment protocols."
February 17, 2006 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
A relaxed standard for determining whether expert testimony should be allowed to establish causation in a medical malpractice case has been adopted by New York’s Appellate Division, 2nd Department.
Justice Daniel F. Luciano, writing for a unanimous panel, warned that too strict a test could result in prematurely choking off valid claims.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
Join the Mendocino County District Attorney s Office and work in Mendocino County home to redwoods, vineyards and picturesque coastline. ...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
