Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
Citation: 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1993)
Facts
Parents of children born with limb reduction birth defects sued Merrell Dow, claiming that the anti-nausea drug Bendectin caused the defects. Merrell Dow presented an expert affidavit based on a review of published epidemiological studies finding no causal link. Plaintiffs offered expert testimony relying on in vitro studies and reanalysis of existing data, which had not been published or peer reviewed. The district court excluded the testimony under the Frye “general acceptance” test and granted summary judgment.
Issue
Whether the Frye “general acceptance” standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony survived the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and if not, what standard governs.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Frye test was superseded by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under FRE 702, the trial judge serves as a gatekeeper with the responsibility to ensure that expert scientific testimony is both scientifically valid (reliable) and relevant (fits the facts of the case).
Rule
Under the Daubert reliability test, trial judges must evaluate expert testimony by considering non-exclusive factors: (1) whether the theory has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential error rate; (4) the existence and maintenance of controlling standards; and (5) whether the theory is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. General acceptance is one factor, not the only one.
Significance
Daubert replaced the Frye test in federal courts and fundamentally recast the role of the trial judge as an active gatekeeper of expert testimony. It is now codified in FRE 702 (as amended). Together with Joiner and Kumho Tire, it forms the “Daubert trilogy” governing expert admissibility.