Our Practice

Daubert Hearings/Junk Science


Effective expert testimony is essential in mass tort litigation. We have particular skill and experience presenting complex scientific information to courts and juries, whether in Daubert or Frye hearings, motions, or trials. We have substantial experience cross-examining adverse scientific experts and have successfully challenged the admission of their opinions in federal and state courts across the country.

We have litigated and tried cases in which the claims involved allegations of a variety of drug-induced injuries, chemical and mineral carcinogenesis, microbial contamination, immune-system disorders, kidney injuries and transplants, cerebrovascular accidents, neuropsychiatric injury, virally-contaminated blood products, chemical explosions, pesticide-residue chemistry, hydrogen sulfide exposure, and aircraft engine design. We have defended clients against fringe-science claims, including multiple chemical sensitivity and psychiatric injury.

Recent victories include:

In re Trasylol Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL-1928 (S.D. Fla.):

  • The Court granted defendants’ Daubert motion and excluded in its entirety the testimony of Dr. Suzanne Parisian, a key regulatory expert witness frequently offered by pharmaceutical drug plaintiffs. 709 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (S.D. Fla. 2010). Observing that Dr. Parisian was merely an “advocate” for plaintiffs’ theory of the case rather than a reliable expert, the Court explained that her speculative and conclusory opinions were not connected to the facts or supported by the requisite analysis. The Court also held that Dr. Parisian was not qualified to offer opinions on foreign regulatory action, causation, or the import of scientific studies; her factual narrative of the drug's regulatory history was not helpful to the trier of fact; and her opinions about employees’ knowledge and state of mind were improper.
  • Defendants successfully argued for Daubert exclusion of plaintiffs’ causation experts, and summary judgment, in the following MDL cases: Dominic Consolino v. Bayer Corp., Case No. 08-80942 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2011); Jeanne Collins v. Bayer Corp., Case No. 08-80605 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 1, 2011); Conrad Puckett v. Bayer Corp., Case No. 08-80920 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2011); Roseann Caruso v. Bayer Corp. (Plaintiff Willard Chappell), Case. No. 08-80639 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 21, 2010); Clarence Walker v. Bayer HealthCare AG, Case No. 08-80642 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2010); Helen Reedy v. Bayer Corp., Case No. 08-80595 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 23, 2010).

In re Baycol Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1431 (D. Minn.):

  • The Court excluded plaintiffs’ generic experts’ testimony regarding the comparative toxicity of statins, and precluded plaintiffs’ experts from testifying regarding a recalculation of the manufacturer’s study results. The Court further ruled that plaintiffs’ generic experts’ opinions on the manufacturer’s ethical obligations were inadmissible.
  • The Court granted defendants’ Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment, in the following MDL cases: Valle v. Bayer AG, Case No. 04-4424, (D. Minn. Nov. 17, 2008); Reinhart v. Bayer AG, Case No. 04-4404, (D. Minn. Nov. 17, 2008); Roper v. Bayer Corp., Case No. 03-3140 (D. Minn. Oct. 13, 2008) (dismissing 37 plaintiffs after excluding their causation expert); Ronwin v. Bayer Corp., Case No. 01-CV-171 (D. Wyo. Sept. 30, 2008), aff'd, No. 08-8089 (10th Cir. June 17, 2009); Epps v. Bayer Corp., Case No. 03-0037 (D. Minn. Sept. 9, 2008).

Other Daubert and Frye Victories Include:


  • Reece v. AstraZeneca Pharms., LP, 500 F. Supp. 2d 736 (S.D. Ohio 2007) (holding that testimony of plaintiff’s expert Dr. Suzanne Parisian on medical matters was unreliable and not admissible)
  • Shimitz v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 2007 WL 1658686 (D. Neb. June 5, 2007) (excluding testimony of plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Kaye Kilburn, after finding his methodologies to be unreliable and incomplete)
  • Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F. 3d 748 (8th Cir. 2006) (precluding plaintiff’s expert toxicologist from testifying on medical causation)
  • Lewis, et al. v. Bayer AG, et al., No. 002353, (C.C.P. Phila. Co. Sept. 19, 2005) (granting summary judgment against a medical monitoring class following the exclusion of plaintiffs’ expert pursuant to Frye)
  • In re Diet Drugs, 2001 WL 454586 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2001) (granting motion to exclude plaintiffs’ generic cardiac pathology expert)

We have for over two decades countered controversial claims of chemically-induced immune dysfunction and novel techniques allegedly used to diagnose these disorders such as blood cell phenotyping, chemical and autoantibody testing, brain scans, and neuropsych testing. The firm also maintains a collection of hard-to-find decisions regarding multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). A copy of that list can also be requested by email to .