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. The judges cautioned against an overly demanding approach to expert testimony which could result in prematurely choking off valid claims. The appellate court ruled that the trial court had “too restrictively” applied the test formulated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), for determining when expert testimony on a novel scientific issue should be permitted.
The Legal Examiner and our Affiliate Network strive to be the place you look to for news, context, and more, wherever your life intersects with the law.
Comments for this article are closed.