Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.co...
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
In the 1950s, drug manufacturer Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals developed a breakthrough pregnancy drug called Bendectin. Over 33 million women worldwide used Bendectin to soothe the symptoms of morning sickness. But a number of women taking Bendectin gave birth to children with severe deformities. Lawsuits brought by families who blamed Bendectin for the defects became so numerous and expensive that Merrell Dow took the drug off the market in 1983. Despite the allegations against Merrell Dow, it was never clear that Bendectin actually caused birth defects, even after the drug was taken off the shelves.
Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller were born with birth defects to mothers who took Bendectin. Their families brought a case against Merrell Dow that eventually reached the United States Supreme Court.
Unsurprisingly, the attorneys in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals argued fiercely over whether Bendectin actually caused the children’s birth defects. Merrell Dow relied on established scientific findings, pointing to over 30 published studies on Bendectin, none of which showed that the drug caused birth defects. The plaintiffs’ attorneys countered with eight expert witnesses, all with impressive credentials, who believed that Bendectin caused birth defects. These experts did not base their opinions on the accepted conclusions of studies on the drug’s effects on humans. Instead, the experts relied on indirect evidence, including tests on animals, evaluations of the drug’s chemical makeup, and reanalysis of previous studies.
The federal district court in California applied the common-law Frye test and ultimately decided that the plaintiffs’ expert testimony was inadmissible. The test, named for the 1923 case, Frye v. United States, that established it, required that admissible scientific expert testimony be based on principles that are, quote, “generally accepted,” unquote, by the scientific community. The indirect studies that the plaintiffs’ experts relied on did not meet this test. Therefore, the district court granted summary judgment for Merrell Dow. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed. The plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for cert. The Court granted the request.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.co...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.co...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.co...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our RU-vid Channel ► www.youtube.co...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.co...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
23 ноя 2020
