The Lab Whose Junk Science Is Fueling a Frenzy of Litigation
Legitimate consumer protection demands sound science and impartial analysis — not distorted data designed to manufacture lawsuits.
(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.
Legitimate consumer protection demands sound science and impartial analysis — not distorted data designed to manufacture lawsuits.
Law Firms Spent $168M+ on 2.2M Ads in Georgia
ATRA’s Latest Studies Reveal Financial Influence and Lack of Transparency in Pennsylvania’s Campaign Finance Systems
Two New Reports Analyze Legal Services Advertising Trends and Campaign Contributions
Two New Reports Unveil Disturbing Trends in Legal Services Advertising and Plaintiffs’ Firms’ Political Contributions
In-depth analysis unveils trial lawyers’ staggering advertising and political spending, exposing tactics used to shape public opinion and legal outcomes.