On May 16, 2006, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court issued an order declining to reconsider a decision that permits questionable expert testimony to be introduced in a medical malpractice case. The decision was a setback for WLF, which filed a brief urging reconsideration. WLF’s brief argued that expert medical testimony must be excluded from court proceedings when it is based on “junk science.” WLF argued that the testimony should have been excluded because the medical conclusions reached by the “experts” lacked support in the medical literature. The American Medical Association also urged the appeals court to reconsider its decision. WLF argued that allowing the “expert” testimony in this case was particularly inappropriate because it consisted of a claim that an FDA-drug had caused the plaintiff’s disease, yet the drug in question has been marketed for decades without any indication in the medical literature that the drug can trigger that disease.