On July 21, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an anticipated decision in Walsh v. BASF, in which it considered the trial court’s role as the “gatekeeper” for expert testimony, tackling again the state’s application of the Frye test—as opposed to the Daubert test most frequently applied in federal courts and a majority of state courts. Although the Supreme Court declined to specifically endorse the trial court’s gatekeeper role, its opinion assures that the trial court’s role in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony still exists under Pennsylvania’s Frye analysis.

In Walsh v. BASF, the executor of the estate of Thomas J. Walsh brought a wrongful death and survival action against manufacturers of pesticides that Walsh, a groundskeeper, had applied during his career. Walsh had served as a groundskeeper and golf course superintendent at several golf courses over the course of nearly 40 years.