The Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed a Superior Court decision barring an expert’s testimony, ruling that the testimony was unreliable under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Daubert standard because her opinion was not peer-reviewed. The high court’s decision blocks the expert from testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs in the hazardous chemical exposure case.
“To be sure, every trial expert witness will necessarily form an opinion or draft a report for purposes of litigation,” Justice Jack B. Jacobs said in Tumlinson v. Advanced Micro Devices. “What is important, however, is whether the opinion or conclusion offered in litigation is consistent with, or based on, the expert’s research and experience developed outside the litigation context. Here, the trial court discounted the expert testimony’s reliability because ‘Dr. [Linda] Frazier’s findings were made for this litigation.’ We find no reason to reject that conclusion.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]