Charles Kannankeril v. Terminix International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[t]he analysis of the conclusions themselves is for the trier of fact when the expert is subjected to cross-examination”
• stating that notwithstanding the testimony of plaintiffs medical expert (who concluded that defendants’ product was the most likely cause of plaintiffs condition
• stating that where expert meets “liberal minimum qualifications, then the level of [his] expertise goes to credibility and weight, not admissibility”
• holding trial court erred in excluding expert's testimony when opinion supported by differential diagnosis, temporal proximity, and reading of standard textbooks and references; however, \widely accepted scientific knowledge of nature of\ chemical's toxicity existed
• stating that in the context of medical testimony, “it is perfectly acceptable, in arriving at a diagnosis, for a physician to rely on examinations and tests performed by other medical practitioners.”
• finding that, when an expert employs a reliable methodology, “[t]he analysis of the conclusions themselves is for the trier of fact when the expert is subjected to cross-examination”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).