Linda Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded expert testimony as unreliable because the expert could not determine which of multiple risk factors caused plaintiffs disease
• acknowledging that, even if a medical expert’s report prepared without examination or interview of the subject is in some instances admissible, the factfinder must still determine its weight
• reversing grant of summary judgment where expert’s testimony, which would have created a genuine issue of material fact, was excluded because it was erroneously deemed unreliable and irrelevant
• finding expert’s testimony relevant and reliable, but fact issues precluded summary 17 judgment on products liability claims
• reversing grant of summary judgment where expert’s testimony, which would have created a genuine issue PYRAMID TECH. V. ALLIED PUBLIC ADJUSTERS 15 of material fact, was excluded because it was erroneously deemed unreliable and irrelevant
• reversing grant of summary judgment where expert’s testimony, which would have created a genuine issue of material fact, was excluded because it was erroneously deemed unreliable and irrelevant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).