McClellan v. I-Flow Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that case studies, in vitro and animal studies “are routinely reviewed and relied upon by physicians in the normal course of their profession, as evidenced by a review of the medical literature”
• “[T]he eyes of the toys are functional because they are essential to the goal of making the plush toys look like animals.”
• “Regardless, the lack of epidemiological evidence is not fatal to the admission of plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony, particularly in a case where no epidemiology “rules out” continuous infusion as a cause of chondrolysis.”
• “It is well established that expert 2 testimony is not helpful if it simply addresses lay matters which the jury is capable of 3 understanding and deciding without the expert’s help.” (citation and quotation marks 4 omitted)
• “I find that the district court in Kilpatrick went far beyond its gatekeeping function and ‘failed to distinguish between the threshold question of admissibility of expert testimony and the persuasive weight to be accorded such testimony by a jury.’ ”
• “Importantly, it is not the court’s role to decide whether the proffered testimony sufficiently proves [causation]; rather, it is the court’s duty to ensure that the proffered testimony is sufficiently reliable to be admitted at trial for consideration by the trier of fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).