Description
In every toxic tort, medical device, and pharmaceutical product liability case, a threshold issue is whether the product, device, or substance is even capable of causing the alleged harm in some part of the population. To establish this, lawyers rely first and foremost on epidemiological experts and research, the "gold standard" of general causation evidence. Causation, however, is a continuum, and no single study can prove causation.
If the plaintiff's epidemiological testimony and related studies are excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, the litigation will most likely end, or at least be significantly narrowed. Thus, admissibility under FRE 702 and Daubert is fiercely litigated in most cases.
Courts are increasingly taking a "hard look" at experts' methodologies and assessing whether the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case. For example, courts are analyzing experts' logic, asking if their final opinions exceed the limits of applicable studies, and being sensitive to when experts are "cherry-picking" the evidence to fit the desired conclusions.
Listen as this esteemed panel of product liability litigators discusses the admissibility of epidemiological evidence in toxic tort, medical device, and pharmaceutical product liability cases
Presented By
Mr. Campbell is a partner in the firm’s Product Liability and Mass Tort practice. He has experience in all phases of litigation, including first-chairing jury and bench trials in state and federal courts and arguing appeals. He is co-author of the book Expert Witnesses: Products Liability Cases (West 2009), an in-depth guide to expert witness development in all types of product liability and mass tort matters, including pharmaceutical, toxic torts, automotive, industrial accidents and children's and consumer products.
Ms. Carrier is a litigation lawyer with experience in government, law firm, and corporate legal department roles. Her practice focuses on defending international corporations in complex litigation, primarily in the consumer products, pharmaceutical, and women's health sectors. Ms. Carrier's experience arguing before state, federal, and bankruptcy courts help her guide companies in all phases of case management and trial preparation. She also advises clients in a wide variety of non-dispute matters, including product development and compliance.
Mr. Castile is a trial attorney in Reed Smith’s Philadelphia office. His practice involves a wide range of commercial litigation matters, with a focus on defending pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers in products liability litigation.
Mr. McConnell defends clients in product liability and mass tort litigation. He has also handled securities litigation, complex commercial litigation, and white-collar criminal litigation. He is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney with ample first-chair experience in both government and private practice cases and has successfully argued significant matters before federal and state trial and appellate courts. Mr. McConnell has represented consumer products manufacturers and leading global medical device and pharmaceutical companies, including Wyeth, for whom he served as first-chair trial counsel in the diet drug litigation.
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
-
Date + Time
- event
Tuesday, March 14, 2023
- schedule
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT
- General, specific, and legal causation
- Role of differential diagnosis
- Science of epidemiology and the hierarchy of evidence
- Association vs. causation
- Bradford Hill criteria
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
- Assessing admissibility under FRE 702
- Assist trier of fact
- Sufficient facts or data
- Product of reliable principles and methods
- Expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case
- Daubert criteria for scientific evidence
- Strategies for plaintiffs and defendants
The panel will discuss these and other key issues:
- What is epidemiology?
- Can epidemiological studies support specific causation?
- When considering admissibility, does rebuttal expert evidence have to meet the same standards as the plaintiff's evidence?
- What factors show that an expert's opinion does not reflect a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case?
Related Courses
Prior Inconsistent Statements in Social Media and Inactive Websites: Planning for Amendments to FRE 801(d)
Tuesday, October 28, 2025
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT
Securities Class Certification Under Inflation-Maintenance Theory: Rebutting Price Impact
Thursday, November 20, 2025
1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT