Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Application of the Frye Standard to Medical Expert Testimony

By Steven Glickstein and Robert Grass
November 28, 2006

This article addresses a recent decision of a New York state appellate court concerning the admissibility of expert medical testimony to establish causation in a case involving injuries allegedly incurred from treatment with a prescription medication. In Zito v. Zabarsky, 28 A.D.3d 42 (2d Dep't Jan. 24, 2006), the appellate court held that expert testimony that a plaintiff's injury was caused by a prescription medication was admissible when that testimony was based on a single case report indicating a link between the medication and the injury. The court's holding is inconsistent with other New York appellate decisions addressing the admissibility of expert testimony concerning medical causation and threatens to dilute New York's standard for making that assessment, and could have the same effect in other states that apply the same standard.

New York state courts apply the standard set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), to determine the admissibility of 'novel scientific evidence.' People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417, 422 (1994). In People v. Wernick, 89 N.Y.2d 111, 117 (1996), the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, held that the Frye test applies 'in all instances when a party seeks to present novel scientific or … medical evidence.' (Emphasis added.) Specifically, the court held that a defendant's attempt to offer expert testimony in 'an attempt to establish a 'pattern,' 'profile,' 'theory' or 'syndrome' to show certain characteristics of women who kill their newborns immediately after birth was subject to the Frye standard. The Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of that 'novel hypothesis' because that theory was 'not generally recognized in the relevant medical context and community.' Id. at 115.

The Frye standard is implicated when plaintiffs in product liability, medical malpractice, or other tort cases offer expert medical testimony to establish that a medication was the proximate cause of injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Plaintiffs generally must prove medical causation through the use of expert testimony because that is not a subject within the ordinary understanding of lay jurors. New York courts have applied Frye under such circumstances.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.