Norris 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.

• holding that experts' differential diagnoses that were contrary to all available epidemiological evidence that silicone breast implants did not cause diseases at issue were not admissible
• holding that experts’ differential diagnoses that were contrary to all available epidemiological evidence that silicone breast implants did not cause diseases at issue were not admissible
• holding that experts’ differential diagnoses that were contrary to all available epidemiological evidence that silicone breast implants did not cause diseases at issue were not admissible
• noting that the relevance inquiry involves a consideration of “whether proposed 8 testimony is sufficiently relevant to the task at hand” (quotation and citation omitted)
• explaining that court not required “to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert’’
• noting “that epidemiology is the best evidence of general causation in a toxic tort case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).