Masino v. West Jersey & S. S. R. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that without the expert’s testimony the plaintiffs could not establish cause
• holding that the plaintiff’s expert testimony failed to establish exposure to a chemical when the expert did not address “how frequently, in what quantity, or in what form” the plaintiff was exposed to the chemical or the plaintiff’s “specific dose”
• excluding expert who did not review medical records or investigate the plaintiffs level of exposure or other information about her work environment
• “[Notwithstanding his general qualifications as a toxicologist, [the witness] did not possess sufficient expertise^ or knowledge as to the relevant medical question dealing with the proximate cause of [the plaintiffs] injuries to assist the trier of fact in understanding the case”
• “Under Illinois law, to serve as the sole basis for a conclusion that an act was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury, an expert must be able to testify with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that proximate cause existed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).