“Because Plaintiffs’ experts’ methods are neither testable nor falsifiable, they may not masquerade as scientific knowledge in federal court.”
—Cory L. Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation
Click here for WLF’s brief.
(Washington, DC)—Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today asked the U.S. Court of Appels for the Second Circuit to affirm a federal trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer of a leading prescription antidepressant.
The appeal arises from a lawsuit over the FDA-approved drug Lexapro®, an antidepressant therapy in the class of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Plaintiffs are six women who allege that using Lexapro® while pregnant ultimately caused their minor children to develop autism spectrum disorder. Because Plaintiffs adduced no admissible, reliable expert evidence to prove general causation, the district court granted summary judgment for the manufacturer and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims.
In its amicus brief supporting affirmance, WLF rebuts the suggestion that the flaws in Plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony go to the weight that testimony should be given, rather than to its reliability. WLF’s brief also explains why relaxing the reliability threshold for expert evidence of causation in pharmaceutical-liability cases would significantly harm public health. And WLF reminds the court of the facts underlying the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision itself, which also involved a beneficial drug (Bendectin) wrongly alleged to have caused harm during in utero exposure.