Expert Witness Court Test in Ohio

The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued a 4-3 decision that affirmed lower court rulings that held that rules of evidence governing "expert witnesses" can preclude testimony about an alleged cancer resulting from chemical exposures where no studies are cited to demonstrate a causal effect between the exposure and the cancer.

In the case at hand, the family of an employee at PPG Industries alleged that workplace exposure to chemicals for some 30 years was responsible for a very rare form of brain cancer. At trial in county court, the family's attorney presented testimony from doctors and an industrial hygienist. That testimony suggested some undefined relationship between the employee's work and the cancer he developed. However, the county court rejected the testimony as not meeting the standards for expert witnesses - and issued a summary judgment in favor of PPG.

A majority court  opinion stated that "Expert opinion based on unscientific principles and methodology is unhelpful to the trier of fact and has no place in courts of law," and that none of the so-called expert witnesses in the case at hand cited any scientific studies that provided evidence of a causal connection between the employee's work at PPG and the brain cancer.

This decision was cited as support for the principle that "expert" testimony must meet standards of scientific validity and quality, and that PPG was to be commended for defending the principle of good science in the courtroom.