Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Home Topics

Litigation

Features

Kumho for Clinicians in the Courtroom Image

Kumho for Clinicians in the Courtroom

Harold J. Bursztajn, Milo Fox Pulde, Darlyn Pirakitikulr & Michael Perlin

Two Supreme Court rulings, <i>Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.</i> and <i>Kumho Tire v. Carmichael</i>, have had a profound effect on the treatment of expert testimony in the courts. In 1993, the Supreme Court, in Daubert, articulated guidelines for admissibility of scientific expertise as testimony. Later, in 1999, in <i>Kumho</i>, the Court focused on the admissibility of clinical expertise as testimony. More recently there has been increasing recognition of the inconsistency of trial courts in their construction and articulation of evidentiary standards to medical testimony. One proposed remedy is that 'Physicians should respond by correcting courts' misinterpretations of medical practice and assisting in the development of legal standards that encourage thoughtful and informed consideration of medical testimony by judges and juries.'

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Artist Challenges Copyright Office Refusal to Register Award-Winning AI-Assisted Work
    Copyright law has long struggled to keep pace with advances in technology, and the debate around the copyrightability of AI-assisted works is no exception. At issue is the human authorship requirement: the principle that a work must have a human author to be eligible for copyright protection. While the Copyright Office has previously cited this "bedrock requirement of copyright" to reject registrations, recent decisions have focused on the role of human authorship in the context of AI.
    Read More ›
  • Recently Introduced Bill Would Limit ITC 'Domestic Industry by Subpoena'
    Patent infringement disputes in the United States are not only heard in district courts. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) also decides high-stakes intellectual property disputes — with the remedy for the IP rights holder not being damages, but rather an exclusion order that can block a competitor's importation of infringing articles into the U.S. That remedy can be incredibly powerful for companies engaged in stiff competition in the U.S. market.
    Read More ›
  • Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
    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.
    Read More ›