Effective Advocacy and Judicial Review on Expert Scientific Evidence: A Federal Court Case Study
This morning, WLF hosted this Web Seminar featuring Skadden Arps attorneys Stephen Harburg and Geoffrey Wyatt. The program is available in its entirety by clicking on the title above. Our speakers have been directly involved in the multi-district litigation initiated three years ago by plaintiffs’ lawyers claiming that their clients had been harmed by exposure to manganese, which is used in welding. Their presentation focused on a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decision, Tamraz v. Lincoln Electric Co., where Mr. Harburg presented oral arguments on behalf of Lincoln Electric and three other defendants. The hour-long program offers targets of toxic tort, mass tort, and other science-driven litigation a wealth of insights on issues which arise with plaintiffs’ expert testimony, including:
- The unique challenges defendants face when opposing the expert testimony of the plaintiff’s attending physician
- The ability to manage Daubert evidentiary reviews when posed with a deeply sympathetic plaintiff
- Knowing when to directly undermine a testifying doctor’s diagnosis and his conclusion on causation, and when and how to target only causation and not etiology
- Convincing appellate court judges not to accord undue deference to a trial court judge on admissibility of expert evidence