Expert Opinion in Serious Injury and Death Cases

In serious injury and death cases our attorneys consistently face challenges from the defense to the testimony of our highly qualified expert witnesses. These challenges are based upon the rule of evidence known as the Daubert standard.

The Daubert standard is a legal precedent set in 1993 by the United States Supreme Court regarding the admissibility of expert scientific testimony during legal proceedings. In Daubert, the Supreme Court ordered federal trial judges to become the “gatekeepers” of scientific evidence. Trial judges were instructed to evaluate expert witnesses to determine whether their testimony is both “relevant” and “reliable”.

A two-prong test of admissibility was established. The relevancy prong refers to whether or not the expert’s evidence fits the facts of the case. The relevancy requirement has always existed in the law.

The reliability prong was new. The Supreme Court explained that in order for expert testimony to be considered reliable, the expert must derive his or her conclusions from the scientific method. The court then offered general observations of whether proffered evidence was based on scientific method including such things as empirical testing, peer review, the potential error rate, and whether the theory or technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.

In practice, this standard has been burdensome, and grossly unfair to claimants in courtrooms. Trial judges are simply in no better position than juries to serve as “gatekeepers” to scientific evidence. In fact, many of these judges bring their own biases to their determinations. One example given is that under this standard, if Christopher Columbus were required to appear in a courtroom during his lifetime using the Daubert standard, his opinion that the world is round would have been inadmissible.

As part of the so-called Governor’s tort reform of 2005, the Daubert standard was adopted by the state legislature for use in Georgia. However, bowing to pressure from the Prosecuting Attorney’s of the state, who realized how gross unfairness of the Daubert standard, the governor and legislature exempted criminal cases from the Daubert standard. However, catering to the demands of the insurance industry and large corporations, the legislature adopted the Daubert standard for civil cases.

Currently pending before the Georgia Supreme Court is a case in which the Daubert standard is being challenged on constitutional grounds. An argument is being made that it denies equal protection to adopt the standard in civil cases and not in criminal cases. It will be very interesting to see how the Georgia Supreme Court handles this challenge, especially in light of the fact that in recent years, large insurance companies and corporations have thrown millions of dollars into the judicial races in attempts to elect candidates who will follow their agenda.