Blog

Experts and medical literature – short, sweet and to the pointMarch 10, 2011

Rowe v Fisher, 2011 NY Slip Op 01721 (1st Dept. 2011)

“The motion court properly precluded plaintiffs’ expert testimony on chelation because the expert’s theories were contrary to the medical literature on the subject and therefore “unreliable” (Parker v Mobile Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 447 [2006]).”

“Plaintiffs’ [*2]position was based solely on their expert’s own unsupported beliefs (see Marso v Novak, 42 AD3d 377, 378-379 [2007], lv denied 12 NY3d 704 [2009]).”

In my mind, this is a powerful case for so many reasons.

4 Responses

  1. Raymond Zuppa says:

    From the bowels of Herbert Street I return.

    Daubert. Junk science. There is even a federal rule of civil procedure to screen this kind of expert stuff before it goes before a jury. If the Court determines that it is unreliable it does not get in.

    The whole thing is like another trial albeit bench with discovery etc.

    Some firms just specialize in that aspect. Think of a pharmacetical class action.

  2. Raymond Zuppa says:

    Also I think the 1st Dep’t. is going to get rid of No Fault Peers if not IMEs at some point.

    • JT says:

      This would mean that your fortress at Herbert Street will be used solely for your enterprise corruption/Rico practice?

  3. Raymond Zuppa says:

    That’s top secret. I will tell you this much. It is more complicated getting into the joint then it was for Maxwell Smart (“Get Smart”) to get into Control.

Leave a Reply