Mitchell v. Gencorp Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff was required to demonstrate the level at which exposure to the toxic substance is hazardous to human beings and the plaintiffs actual level of exposure to the substance
• holding that expert testimony suffered from “an analytical gap” when studies only supported a connection between the chemical agent and the plaintiffs leukemia, not a causal relationship (quoting Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146, 118 S.Ct. 512)
• noting that under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, admissible expert testimony must be based on “actual knowledge and not ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation’” (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993))
• “Missing from [the plaintiffs evidence] is additional testimony explaining what these similarities are and how the similarities cause the human body to respond to Defendant’s chemicals in a manner similar to benzene.”
• distinguishing “evidence that is genuinely scientific, [from] unscientific speculation offered by a genuine scientist.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• upholding a district court’s exclusion of expert opinions based on studies that address the relationship between diseases and agents different from those at issue in the litigation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).