In Re Silicone Gel Breast Impl. Prod. Liab. Lit.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[a] court abuses its discretion when it excludes expert testimony solely on the ground that the witness’s qualifications are not sufficiently specific if the witness is generally qualified”
• using three-part inquiry under Rule 702 to test expert’s qualifications, the reliability of the testimony, and the usefulness of the testimony
• evaluating the 4 plaintiff’s causation experts’ testimony under Daubert at summary judgment, finding 5 such testimony inadmissible, and concluding that it could not be used to create a genuine 6 issue regarding specific causation
• “[O]ne can usually rely on 20 the fact that a compound causing an effect in one mammalian species will cause it in another 21 species.”
• \Animal studies are not generally admissible where contrary epidemiological evidence in humans exists.\
• “A court abuses its discretion when it excludes expert testimony solely on the ground that the witness’s qualifications are not sufficiently specific if the witness is generally qualified. A lack of specialization affects the weight of the expert’s testimony, not its admissibility.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).