Page 226 - Veterinary Toxicology, Basic and Clinical Principles, 3rd Edition

Toxicology and the Law Chapter | 11 193

VetBooks.ir Carruth, R.S., Goldstein, B.D., 2001. Relative risk greater than two in Lennon v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 123 F. Supp. 2d 1143, 1154 (N.D.
Ind. 2000).
proof of causation in toxic tort litigation. Jurimetrics. 41,
195 209.
Mancuso v. Consolidated Edison Co., 56 F. Supp. 2d 391, 403 (S.D.N.Y.
1999), rev’d on other grounds, 216 F.3d 1072 (2d Cir. 2000), at 394-95.
Cavallo v. Star Enterprise, 892 F. Supp. 756, 771 (E.D. Va. 1995), aff’d
in part, rev’d in part, 100 F.3d 1150 (4th Cir. 1996). See also, Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc. 126 F.3d 679, 5th Cir. 1997, rehearing
Implant Litig., 11 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1230 (D. Colo. 1998); Kelley v. en banc granted, opinion vacated, 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998).
American Heyer-Schulte Corp., 957 F. Supp. 873, 882 (W.D. Tex. National Bank of Commerce v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 22 F. Supp.
1997); Rutigliano v. Valley Bus. Forms, 929 F. Supp. 779, 783 (D. 2d 942, 963 (E.D. Ark. 1998), aff’d, 191 F.3d 858 (8th Cir. 1999).
N.J. 1996); Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947 F. Supp. 1387, Plourde v. Gladstone, No. 02-9136, 2d Cir. June 27, 2003 (unpublished).
1413 (D. Or. 1996). The testimony of a toxicologist was excluded, and the exclusion
Daubert I, 509 U.S. at 593 n. 10; see e.g., Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. affirmed, because the toxicologist was not a medical doctor ans was
Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 2d 1024, 1030 (N.D. Cal. therefore unqualified to offer a reliable differential diagnosis regard-
1999). ing the development of symptoms after exposure of pesticide follow-
DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 911 F.2d 941, 958 (3d Cir. 1990). ing spraying the neighbor’s farm.
Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2003). Ray v. Miller Meester Advertising, Inc., Filed June 16, 2003, File No.
Eaton, D.L., Klaassen, C.D., 2001. Principles of toxicology. 9817380.
In: Klaassen, C.D. (Ed.), Casarett and Doull’s Toxicology, Raynor v. Merrell Pharmaceuticals, 101 F.3d 129, 138-39 (D.C. Cir.
th
The Basic Science of Poisons, Chapter 2, 6 edition McGraw Hill, 1996).
New York, pp. 11 34. Raynor v. Merrell Pharms., Inc., 104 F.3d 1371, 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
Federal Rules of Evidence. December 31, 2004. judiciary.house.gov/ Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Second edition. Federal
media/ pdfs/printers/108th/evid2004. Judicial Center, 2000. The manual is available at: www.fjc.gov/pub-
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). lic/pdf.nsf/lookup/sciman00.pdf/$file/sciman00.pdf.
Giannelli, P.C., 1980. The admissibility of novel scientific evidence: Frye Rutigliano v. Valley Business Forms, 929 F. Supp. at 783.
v. United States, a half-century later. 80 Colum. L. Rev. 1197, 1205. Sanders, J., Scientific Validity, Admissibility and Mass torts After
Giannelli, P.C., 1980. , The admissibility of novel scientific evidence: Daubert, 78 Minn L Rev. 1387 (1994); Susan R. Poulter, Science
Frye v. United States, a half century later. 80 COLUM. L. REV. and Toxic Torts: Is there a rational Solution to the Problem of
1197, 1201. Causation ? 7 High Tech L.J. 189 (1992).
Goeb v. Tharaldson, 615 N.W.2d 800, 816 (Minn. 2000). Siharath v. Sandoz Pharms. Corp., 131 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1352 (N.D.
Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande Western R.R., 215 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir. Ga. 2001) (citing Wheat v. Sofamor, S.N.C, 46 F. Supp. 2d 1351,
2000). 1357 (N.D. Ga. 1999) (product liability action excluding testimony
Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande Western R.R., No. 02-1391 (10th Cir. that failed to establish (1) that Parlodel is capable of causing stroke
Oct. 9, 2003). and (2) that Palodel did in fact cause plaintiffs’ strokes)).
Goldstein, B.D., 1997. Toxic substances: scientific status, modern scien- Siharath, 131 F. Supp. 2d at 1352. See e.g. D. T. Ralston, Toxic Tort
tific evidence. In: Faigman, Kaye, Saks, Sanders (Eds.), The Causation Not Just Chemical Exposure Plus Symptoms, Maely’s
Law and Science of Expert Testimony. West Publishing Company, Daubert Rep., Vol. 4, No. 5, at 15-25 (2000).
St. Paul, MN, pp. 277 299. Simpson v Young, 854 f.2d 1429, 1435 (D.C. Cir, 1988).
Toxic substances: scientific status. In: Goldstein, B.D., Carruth, R.S., State of Minnesota v. DeShay, June 11, 2002, MN Court of Appeals,
Faigman, Kaye, Saks, Sanders (Eds.), Modern Scientific Evidence: C9-01-1128. File No. K200600502.
The Law and Science of Expert Testimony. second ed. West State v. Anderson, 379 N.W.2d 70, 79 (Minn. 1985) (Graphology “is
Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN. accorded a low measure of scientific reliability in predicting charac-
Goldstein, B.D., 1993. Invited Paper “Linking scientific and technical ter or state of mind and is not generally accepted in the scientific
expertise to the courts: a scientist’s view of barriers and incentives”. fields of psychology and psychiatry.”).
Presented at the Demonstration Project Planning Conference, State v. Jobe, 486 N.W.2d 407, 419-20 (Minn. 1992) (Admission of
Federal Judicial Center, Washington, DC. November 5, 1993. expert testimony based on DNA test results is proper because the
Goldstein, B.D., 1997. Basic laws for proving causation of disease. New principles underlying forensic DNA testing are generally accepted,
Jersey Lawyer. 6, 6, 72, February 10, 1997. and the laboratory complied with the appropriate standards and
Goldstein, B.D., Gallo, M.A., 1995. Overview of toxicology. Shepard’s controls, thus rendering the results legally reliable.).
Expert Sci. Evid. Quart. 3-1, 45 64. State v. Kolander, 236 Minn. 209, 221 222, 52 N.W.2d 458, 465 (1952).
Goldstein, B.D., Henifin, M.S., 2000. Reference guide on toxicology, State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764, 768 769, 772 (Minn. 1980).
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. second ed. Federal State v. Moore, 458 N.W.2d 90, 97 98 (Minn. 1990) (Admission of
Judicial Center, pp. 401 437. expert testimony on blood spatter interpretation was proper where
Grimes v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 33, 38 (D.N.H. 1995). the district court determined that the theory was generally accepted
Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 947 F. Supp. 1387, 1413 (D. Or. 1996) and the theory’s application was legally reliable).
(holding that “[t]estimony regarding specific causation in a given State v. Moore, 458 N.W.2d 90, 97 98 (Minn. 1990).
patient is irrelevant unless general causation is established”). State v. Rose, 667 N.W.2d 386, 397 (Minn. 2003).
In re Breast Implant Litigation, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1230 (D. Colo 1998). State v. Schwartz, 447 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. 1989).
In re Paoli, 35 F.3d at 758. Troy Corp v. Browner, 129 F.3rd 1290 (D.C. Cir 1997).