Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States
509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the trial judge must act as a gatekeeper to ensure that expert scientific testimony is both relevant and reliable. The rigid "general acceptance" test from Frye v. United States is superseded by the more flexible reliability standard set forth in Rule 702.

Facts:

Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller were born with serious birth defects.
Their mothers had ingested Bendectin, a prescription anti-nausea drug marketed by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., during pregnancy.
Daubert and Schuller alleged that Bendectin caused their birth defects.
Merrell Dow's expert reviewed over 30 published studies involving more than 130,000 patients and concluded no study had found Bendectin to be a human teratogen.
Daubert and Schuller's experts concluded Bendectin can cause birth defects based on in-vitro (test tube) studies, in-vivo (live animal) studies, chemical structure analyses, and reanalyses of previous epidemiological studies.
The expert testimony offered by Daubert and Schuller, specifically their reanalyses of epidemiological data, had not been published or subjected to peer review.

Procedural Posture:

Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller's parents sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in California state court.
Merrell Dow, the defendant, removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (a federal trial court).
Merrell Dow moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs' expert testimony was inadmissible.
The District Court granted summary judgment for Merrell Dow, excluding the plaintiffs' evidence for failing the 'general acceptance' test from Frye v. United States.
The plaintiffs, Daubert and Schuller, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit (an intermediate federal appellate court) affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the Frye 'general acceptance' test was the correct standard.
Daubert and Schuller, the petitioners, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the "general acceptance" test from Frye v. United States provide the exclusive standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial, or was it superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Blackmun

No, the 'general acceptance' test from Frye is not the exclusive standard because it was superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules, particularly Rule 702, assign the trial judge the 'gatekeeping' role of ensuring that an expert’s testimony is both relevant and rests on a reliable foundation. The prior, austere 'general acceptance' standard is absent from and incompatible with the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules. Instead of focusing on consensus, Rule 702 requires the judge to make a preliminary assessment of whether the expert's reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid (reliable) and whether it can be properly applied to the facts at issue (relevant). This inquiry is flexible and focuses on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Chief Justice Rehnquist

No, the Frye rule did not survive the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence. However, the Court should not have proceeded to offer 'general observations' on how Rule 702 should be applied. The majority's newly articulated test asks federal judges, who lack scientific expertise, to become 'amateur scientists' and make determinations about concepts like 'falsifiability,' which are far afield from their customary role. The Court's dicta on reliability and scientific validity are vague, abstract, and will be difficult for lower courts to apply, especially in cases involving technical or other specialized knowledge. The Court should have answered only the question presented and allowed this area of law to develop in future cases.

Analysis:

This landmark decision fundamentally shifted the standard for admitting expert scientific evidence in federal courts, moving from a consensus-based test to a reliability-based one. By anointing trial judges as 'gatekeepers,' the Court placed a significant new responsibility on them to scrutinize the methodology behind scientific testimony. The 'Daubert factors' created a new analytical framework that has had a profound impact on toxic tort, product liability, and medical malpractice litigation, often making it more difficult for plaintiffs to introduce novel scientific theories of causation. This decision significantly enhanced the court's power to exclude what it deems 'junk science' before it reaches a jury.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"