Daily Business Review: Tullio Iacono on Medical Malpractice Restrictions Set Forth in Daubert Case
In an article published in the Daily Business Review on September 8, Partner Tullio Iacono discusses restrictions on evidence in medical malpractice cases set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.
“For both sides in a medical malpractice case, expert medical testimony is critical,” Iacono writes. “Expert medical testimony aids the jury in determining the essential issues in dispute: did the defendant deviate from the standard of care, and if so, did this deviation result in a medical injury? These issues require special knowledge to resolve. Therefore, expert medical testimony is fundamental to each party’s presentation of evidence at trial.”
Efforts by one or both parties to litigation to exclude medical expert testimony from trial are progressively increasing.
“These efforts call upon the trial court to strike medical expert testimony based on the standard for admissibility described in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, a case decided in 1993 by the U.S. Supreme Court,” he explains. “In 2013, the Florida legislature amended the Florida Rules of Evidence to adopt the Daubert standard. In 2019, this standard was recognized by the Florida Supreme Court to apply in Florida as a procedural rule.”
A formulaic application of Daubert to medical malpractice experts misses the point, Iacono says. Rather, a multifactorial approach supplemented by examination of the witness produces reliability. Daubert cannot properly be reduced to a scientific literature standard as some courts have recently interpreted it to be.
For the full article, subscribers may click here.