Safety and Health Reporter
Brien Roche Law > Blog > Personal Injury > Daubert Standard

Daubert Standard

Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Addresses The Daubert Standard

Brien Roche

The Daubert standard was adopted in the federal system in 1993.  The case is Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 

Daubert has never been adopted in Virginia.  In addition the Virginia Code at section 8.01-401.3 in an Editor’s note in the Lexis edition, says that the Code Commission has noted that nothing in the Virginia Code shall be construed as a codification of the Daubert rule.  

Daubert Standard: Look At The Method Not Facts Or Conclusions

What Daubert essentially says is that the court shall act as a gatekeeper to keep out of evidence what might otherwise be referred to as “junk science”.  

The same basic standard as applies to any expert evidence applies under the Daubert analysis.  In other words the evidence must assist the fact-finder in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.  United States v. Young, 916 F.3d 368, 379 (4th Cir. 2019)

Facts

Also Daubert stands for the principle that the court will not necessarily be looking at the factual underpinnings of the expert’s opinion.  That goes to the issue of weight and credibility, not necessarily admissibility.  Bresler v. Wilmington Trust Co., 855 F.3d 178, 195 (4th Cir. 2017)

Conclusions

Also the court will not be guided by the conclusions that the expert generates.  Young v. Swiney, 23 F. Supp 3d 596, 611 (D. Md. 2014)  The conclusions are not what govern.  Instead what governs is the method.

In terms of proving compliance with Daubert, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.  Fireman’s Fund Insurance v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 767 F. Supp 2d 549, 553 (D. Md. 2011)

Finally what Daubert does is identify certain factors to consider in deciding on the admissibility of expert evidence.  These factors are not intended to be all-inclusive.  The Supreme Court in Daubert listed five (5) such factors.  They are:

  • Whether the theory or technique either has been or can be tested.
  • Has the theory or technique been subjected to peer review in a publication?
  • Does the technique have a known or potential rate of error?
  • Are there standards and controls that have been utilized?
  • Has the theory or technique achieved general acceptance in that scientific community?

In addition as indicated in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 151 (1999), there may be other factors that the court applies to its analysis of admissibility.

Call, or contact us for a free consult. Also for more info on Daubert see the Wikipedia pages. Also see the post on this site dealing with expert issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Daubert Standard

Fairfax Injury Lawyer Brien Roche Addresses The Daubert Standard

Brien Roche

The Daubert standard was adopted in the federal system in 1993.  The case is Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 

Daubert has never been adopted in Virginia.  In addition the Virginia Code at section 8.01-401.3 in an Editor’s note in the Lexis edition, says that the Code Commission has noted that nothing in the Virginia Code shall be construed as a codification of the Daubert rule.  

Daubert Standard: Look At The Method Not Facts Or Conclusions

What Daubert essentially says is that the court shall act as a gatekeeper to keep out of evidence what might otherwise be referred to as “junk science”.  

The same basic standard as applies to any expert evidence applies under the Daubert analysis.  In other words the evidence must assist the fact-finder in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.  United States v. Young, 916 F.3d 368, 379 (4th Cir. 2019)

Facts

Also Daubert stands for the principle that the court will not necessarily be looking at the factual underpinnings of the expert’s opinion.  That goes to the issue of weight and credibility, not necessarily admissibility.  Bresler v. Wilmington Trust Co., 855 F.3d 178, 195 (4th Cir. 2017)

Conclusions

Also the court will not be guided by the conclusions that the expert generates.  Young v. Swiney, 23 F. Supp 3d 596, 611 (D. Md. 2014)  The conclusions are not what govern.  Instead what governs is the method.

In terms of proving compliance with Daubert, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.  Fireman’s Fund Insurance v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 767 F. Supp 2d 549, 553 (D. Md. 2011)

Finally what Daubert does is identify certain factors to consider in deciding on the admissibility of expert evidence.  These factors are not intended to be all-inclusive.  The Supreme Court in Daubert listed five (5) such factors.  They are:

  • Whether the theory or technique either has been or can be tested.
  • Has the theory or technique been subjected to peer review in a publication?
  • Does the technique have a known or potential rate of error?
  • Are there standards and controls that have been utilized?
  • Has the theory or technique achieved general acceptance in that scientific community?

In addition as indicated in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 151 (1999), there may be other factors that the court applies to its analysis of admissibility.

Call, or contact us for a free consult. Also for more info on Daubert see the Wikipedia pages. Also see the post on this site dealing with expert issues.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    [recaptcha]