Welcome to the Summer 2015 edition of the Toxic Tort Practice Update, an e-publication created by the attorneys in Barnes & Thornburg LLP's Toxic Tort group that will keep you up-to-date on a number of topics of interest.
New Study Suggests Random Cell Division May Explain Cancer Rates
By David Dirisamer
A recent study provides answers to cancer causation questions that could prove very helpful to defendants in toxic tort litigation in challenging plaintiffs' causation arguments. Click here to read more about this new study and what it means for cancer litigation.
The Past Versus the Present: The Frye/Daubert Debate Continues
By David Frazee
More than two decades after the Supreme Court's decision to reject the Frye standard, the debate continues. Learn more about the difference between Frye and Daubert and the effects on toxic tort litigation.
Court Excludes Expert's Opinion as Unreliable for Failure to Properly Consider Statistical Significance, But Plaintiffs Get Daubert Do-Over Anyway By Oni Harton
Toxic tort cases, similar to product liability actions, are often won or lost based on the strength of expert testimony. Earlier this year in a pharmaceutical mass tort action involving the antidepressant Zoloft, a federal judge ruled that hundreds of people who sued Pfizer over the drug's alleged link to birth defects will be allowed to present another expert. Learn more about this case.
© 2015 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is proprietary and the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. It may not be reproduced, in any form, without the express written consent of Barnes & Thornburg.
This Barnes & Thornburg LLP publication should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own lawyer on any specific legal questions you may have concerning your situation.
