Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that a differential diagnosis that ruptured silicone implants caused the plaintiffs neurological disorder was admissible even though the diagnosis did not satisfy several listed factors
• explaining that, in determining whether a doctor’s opinion regarding causation was admissible scientific evidence, “we focus on [the doctor’s] methodology, not on his conclusions”
• concluding, after reviewing expert’s basis for including and excluding potential causes of plaintiffs condition, that differential diagnosis provided sufficient basis for expert to testify that silicone exposure was likely cause of the plaintiffs condition
• describing doctor’s testimony as including a diagnosis of the plaintiff based on “ ‘taking a careful clinical history’ ”
• scientific evidence subject to requirements of Brown and O’Key even though science involved is not “hard” science
• expert’s opinion as to causation had not been accepted by the scientific community, but neither had it been rejected

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).