Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, 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 expert opinion should be excluded where expert fails to consider alternative causes
• noting that the “proponent of the testimony” bears the burden of proving that it is reliable
• holding that “if an expert utterly fails to consider alternative causes or fails to offer an explanation for why the proffered alternative cause was not the sole cause, a district court is justified in excluding the expert's testimony.”
• noting that “a differential diagnosis that fails to take serious account of other potential causes may be so lacking that it cannot provide a reliable basis for an opinion on causation” (citation omitted)
• finding that an expert’s testimony was properly 16 excluded where the expert merely inferred that a medical product caused the plaintiffs’ injuries without providing data underlying his conclusions that supported such a causal link
• noting a court should only exclude expert testimony where the expert cannot provide a reasoned basis for his failure to consider additional evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).