Douglas C. Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the expert im-permissibly “ignored such background risks. While recognizing the existence of idiopathic (or unknown
• holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony, when the expert \had ample opportunity to identify all of the bases for his conclusions and to explain his methodology in reaching those conclusions\ yet failed to do so
• discussing various forms of evidence which may support a finding that expert testimony meets the standard of reliable scientific knowledge
• finding no abuse of discretion where an expert was excluded because he did not explain “whether it was statistically meaningful to extrapolate from such a small sample size”
• rejecting the “post hoc ergo propter hoc16 fallacy which assumes causation from temporal sequence”
• considering various studies in general causation analysis and finding expert’s testimony speculative and unreliable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).