RFK Jr.’s Trial Lawyer Ties Raise Red Flags
We must ensure that all future health decisions are made with the best interests of all Americans in mind — not the financial motives of profit-seeking plaintiffs’ lawyers.
(3rd Cir., filed October 18, 2016): Arguing that an expert cannot premise a causation analysis on a single statistically-significant association when the larger body of epidemiological studies fails to find any such association. Also, arguing that an expert cannot massage the data with after-the-fact analyses to create associations that were not found by the statistical methodologies originally selected by the scientists who performed the study. Trial court judges must act as gatekeepers over the reliability of expert testimony, carefully evaluating whether such testimony is based on sound scientific principles or is simply bought-and-paid for “junk science.”
Status: On June 2, 2017, the Third Circuit ruled in favor of ATRA’s position. The Court held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the expert witness’s testimony.
We must ensure that all future health decisions are made with the best interests of all Americans in mind — not the financial motives of profit-seeking plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Proposed Reforms Aim to Slash $1,372 Annual ‘Tort Tax’ for Every Georgian
Nuclear Verdicts® and Insurance Fraud Plague State’s Legal System
New Report Ranks Seattle-Area Courts Among Worst in US
$1,046/Person ‘Tort Tax’ — Court Expands Liability, Michiganders Pay
Courts Threaten Preemie Formula Access, Residents Pay $1,475/Person/Year ‘Tort Tax’