Scott Johnson v. Mead Johnson & Company

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “a differential expert opinion can be reliable even ‘with less than full information’” and that “such considerations go to the weight to be given the testimony by the factfinder, not its admissibility”
• holding that courts should be liberal in admitting expert evidence and such evidence should more often “be tested by the adversary process with competing expert testimony and cross-examination, rather than excluded by the court at the outset.” (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590, 596
• finding that the district court “violated [Rule 702’s] liberal admission standards by resolving doubts in favor of keeping the testimony out and relying upon its own assessment of the correctness of the expert opinions” instead of allowing “the adversarial process to work”
• finding an opinion based on a differential diagnosis “presumptively admissible,” and stating that a district court may not exclude such expert testimony unless the diagnoses are “scientifically invalid”
• admonishing district courts “not to weigh or assess the correctness of competing expert opinions”
• agreeing with other circuits that a differential diagnosis is a tested methodology, has been subjected to peer review/publication, does not frequently lead to incorrect results, and is generally accepted in the medical community

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).