roxbury v. montpelier-roxbury

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Federal District Court did not abuse its discretion in disregarding MSDS where proponent failed to come forth with any scientific data to support its warning
• holding that OSHA and NIOSH guidelines do not satisfy Havner
• stating that a court may refrain from treating a defendant’s material safety data sheets as ″per se reliable support for an expert’s opinion″ and require ″scientific evidence justifying the relevant statements found within the MSDS″
• upholding exclusion of expert’s differential diagnosis where there was no “reliable or relevant scientific evidence” to support the expert’s presumption of general causation
• stating that permissible exposure levels set by OSHA ″are not necessarily reliable in all toxic tort cases. It may be appropriate first to consult the underlying basis for their proscriptions before an expert’s reliance on them can pass Daubert muster″
• affirming district court’s exclusion of chemical material safety data sheet where it stated that the chemical can be “severely corrosive to the respiratory system” because it did not state that the chemical could cause plaintiff’s respiratory conditions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).