« Cost of Arsenic Compliance | Main | Responsible Risk Analysis Still a Challenge »

January 23, 2007

Ohio Court & "Expert" Opinions

In July of 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed lower court rulings that held that rules of evidence governing "expert witnesses" precludes 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.

At trial in county court, testimony was presented from doctors and an industrial hygienist suggesting some undefined relationship between the employee's work and the rare brain cancer that 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 the company (PPG).

The written majority opinion of the Court included the following: "Expert opinion based on unscientific principles and methodology is unhelpful to the trier of fact, and has no place in the courts of law." It was apparent that none of the so-called expert witnesses cited any scientific studies that provided evidence of a causal connection between the employee's work and his brain cancer.

PPG is to be commended for its substantial effort to defend the principle of good science in the courtroom.

January 23, 2007 in Legal Implications | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834559fe469e200d8353cdb0653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ohio Court & "Expert" Opinions:

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.

Copyright © VanishingZero.org. All rights reserved.