11/30/07 (WV):
Daubert In Action - Experts Allowed To Testify Following Appeal
|
|
A West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals decision has highlighted the judge's role as 'gatekeeper' in determining questions of admissibility of experts' testimony.
Clinton San Francisco and his wife Jessie visited a local Wendy's in May 2002, following which Clinton became ill. He was admitted to Logan General Hospital, where he remained for a period of 10 days. During this time he was treated by Dr Peter Gregor, an internal medicine and cardiac specialist, who concluded that Mr San Francisco was suffering from food poisoning. Fortunately, Mr San Francisco made a full recovery.
After filing suit against Wendy's, the Plaintiff sought to introduce expert evidence from Dr Gregor and Mr Ewan Todd, an expert in food preparation & safety, based at Michigan State University. The Defense objected on the grounds that, amongst other things, Dr Gregor wasn't a gastroenterologist and that Mr Todd's opinion was speculative and based on assumptions.
The Plaintiff argued that Dr Gregor's years of experience in treating such cases in a hospital environment was enough to qualify him as an expert, whilst Todd's opinion was based on scientific studies.
At County Circuit level, the Court found for the Defense, but this was then reversed on appeal, with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals pointing out that the function of the judge as 'gatekeeper' is not to decide the truthfulness of the proposed testimony, but simply to determine whether its method and reasoning is valid. The lower court had gone beyond that role in this case, and the testimony should be allowed.
Chief Justice Robin Davis said in a separately written opinion that she hoped the state's lower courts would take heed of the San Francisco decision.
"All too often this court is called upon to decide a case in which the trial court has been reluctant to permit an expert witness to testify despite the fact that the witness's credentials qualify him/her as an expert and the matters about which the expert is called to testify are both relevant and reliable to the case at hand," wrote The Chief Justice.
"Rather than freezing like a proverbial deer in the headlights, however, trial courts should be mindful that scientific evidence presented through expert witnesses is presumptively admissible."
The case has now been remitted back to the lower court for trial.
© X-Pro 2007
|
|
