Thomas Pipitone, and Bonnie Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., Biomatrix, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a treating physician’s opinion regarding causation was irrelevant under Daubert because doctor’s opinion was “perfectly equivocal”
• holding that jury was entitled to hear expert testimony and decide whether to accept or reject it after considering whether predicate facts on which expert relied were accurate
• holding that jury was entitled to hear expert testimony and decide whether to accept or reject it after considering whether predicate facts on which expert relied were accurate
• holding that jury was entitled to hear expert testimony and decide whether to accept or reject it after considering whether predicate facts on which expert relied were accurate
• stating that “perfectly equivocal opinion does not make any fact more or less probable and is irrelevant under the Federal Rules of Evidence”
• noting that “plaintiff may prove causation by establishing ‘with reasonable certainty that all other alternatives are impossible’” (emphasis omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).