James R. O'COnner v. Commonwealth Edison Company and London Nuclear Services, Inc., and United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a physician who relied only on per- sonal observation without any personal study or experi- ment to justify his conclusions did not meet the Daubert standard
• holding that a physician’s expert opinion testimony that he could tell whether particular cataract was caused by radiation just by looking at it was inadmissible because no evidence was offered to prove that radiation-induced cataracts could be identified by mere observation
• explaining that “an error is harmless so long as there 14 remains substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision and the error ‘does not 15 negate the validity of the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion’”
• stating that occupational dose limits are the standard of care
• upholding exclusion of expert’s testimony where “his conclusion regarding causation [was] not supported by the authors on which he elaim[ed] to rely”
• noting that treating physicians are not exempt from the requirements of Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 because “we do not distinguish the treating physician from other experts when the treating physician is offering expert testimony regarding causation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).