(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.
This letter-to-the-editor was originally published by The Herald-Dispatch in Huntington, WV. West Virginia was a mainstay on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s “Judicial Hellholes®” list for nearly 20 years, finally […]
This op-ed was originally published by DC Journal – Inside Sources. With Florida’s 2023 legislative session in the rearview mirror, Gov. Ron DeSantis remains under a microscope with pundits and […]
Illinois Businesses Brace for Increased Costs and Diminished Appeal as Trial Bar Pushes for Punitive Damages in Wrongful Death Cases
ATRA President Tiger Joyce discusses Florida’s 2023 legal reform successes with Preston Scott on WFLA-FM Tallahassee.
2023 legislative session resulted in landmark legal reforms, ATRF says
ATRA’s Latest Data Reveals $271.8 Million Spent on Legal Services Advertising in Florida in 2022; Florida Accounted for Nearly 20% of Radio Ad Spending Nationwide
