Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Epidemiologist as an Expert in Litigation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Forensic Epidemiology in the Global Context

  • 669 Accesses

Abstract

In litigation involving toxic torts and environmental law, a causal connection between the damages and the alleged exposure must be established or disproved. Typically, expert evidence is necessary to prevail. Epidemiologists are uniquely suited to serve as experts in these types of cases, as they study ways to ascertain and control the causes of disease, trauma, or other health conditions. Epidemiological testimony can play a role in several legal contexts, but the utilization of epidemiology to prove, or disprove, a casual connection between an exposure and a disease or injury can result in litigation that is both complex and controversial. This chapter provides an overview of different aspects of the litigation process, the roles of experts in the litigation, and the obligations and duties of such experts, with a focus on the laws of the United States and brief references to the processes utilized in various other countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 32 Corpus juris secundum. (2012a). Burden and manner of presenting proof of competency, Section 707.

    Google Scholar 

  • 32 Corpus juris secundum. (2012b). Generally, Section 706.

    Google Scholar 

  • 32 Corpus juris secundum. (2012c). Scope of requisite expertise; licensing, Section 702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alaska Rule of Evidence 702. (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • American law of products liability, 3rd ed. (2012). Qualification as expert—Requisites for qualification, Section 54:80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkansas Rule of Evidence 702. (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Law Reform Commission (n.d.). 9. Opinions based on specialized knowledge. Uniform evidence law (ALRC Report 102)/9. Retrieved October 13, 2012, from http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/9.%20The%20Opinion%20Rule%20and%20its%20Exceptions/opinions-based-specialised-knowledge.

  • Bain, A., & Myer, P. (2010). Direct and cross-examination of expert witnesses in civil litigation: Where art meets science. Expert Witnesses, 1(58), 24–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, B., Jacobson, J., Madeira, E., & See, A. (1997). Expert evidence: A practitioner’s guide to law, science, and the FJC Manual. American Law Institute—American Bar Association Continuing Legal Education, St. Paul, MN: West Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blinka, D. (2011). The Daubert standard in Wisconsin: A primer. Wisconsin Lawyer, 84(3). Retrieved October 13, 2012, from http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Wisconsin_Lawyer&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&contentid=100905.

  • Bois, T. (2011a). When to retain the plaintiff’s expert. Expert Witnesses Environmental Cases, Section 4:2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bois, T. (2011b). When to retain the defendant’s expert. Expert Witnesses Environmental Cases, Section 4:3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bois, T. (2011c). Introduction. Expert Witnesses Environmental Cases, Section 4:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bois, T. (2011d). Nontestifying consulting experts. Expert Witnesses Environmental Cases, Section 5:7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bois, T. (2011e). Expert communications. Expert Witnesses Environmental Cases, Section 3:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bois, T. (2011f). Introduction. Expert Witnesses Environmental Cases, Section 5:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bois, T. (2011g). Practice tip—Six reliability requirements of expert reports. Expert Witnesses Environmental Cases, Section 4:10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L., & Campbell, C. (2009a). Case law regarding qualifications. Expert Witnesses: Products Liability Cases, Section 1.7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L., & Campbell, C. (2009b). Education and training. Expert Witnesses: Products Liability Cases, Section 3.4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L., & Campbell, C. (2009c). Structure. Expert Witnesses: Products Liability Cases, Section 3.18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, N., Williamson, C., & Barkacs, L. (2002). The perspectival nature of expert testimony in the United States, England, Korea, and France. Connecticut Journal of International Law, 18, 55–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budd, T., Cottle, E., & Hutchinson, C. (2012). Expert witness answer book 2012. New York, NY: Practicing Law Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buncher, C. (2012a). What is the role of the epidemiologist? Toxic Torts Practice Guide, 1(4), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buncher, C. (2012b). What can epidemiologist do for attorneys? Toxic Torts Practice Guide, 1(4), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Evidence Code §720. (1967). CanLII 59152 (ON SC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, K., Camara, J., & Wright, N. (2001–2002). Standards of Appellate Review in the Federal Circuit: Substance and Semantics. Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 11, 279. Retrieved October 6, 2012, from http://www.stradley.com/library/files/krc-standards.pdf.

  • Cetrulo, L. (2011). Toxic tort litigation: a functional description. Toxic Torts Litigation Guide, 1(1), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleveland v. Hamilton Health Science Corp. (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses, Federal Court Rules, Rule 52.2. (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses, Judicature Act 1908, Schedule 4. (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth v. Dunkle. (1992). 529 Pa. 168, 602 A.2d 830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connecticut Code of Evidence 7-2. (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Courts; Rules of Evidence, Nebraska Statutes 27-702. (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • Danner, D., & Varn, L. (3rd Ed. 2012). Qualifications—Education. Expert Witness Checklist. (3)14:52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danner, D., & Varn, L. (1994). Toxic experts. American Jurisprudence Trials. (52) 473:8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharamaceuticals, 43 F.3d 1311. (9th Cir. 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579. (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence 702. (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, M. (2004). Experts witness testimony in the prosecution of domestic violence. CPS DV Expert Witness Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dore, M. (2012a). Expert qualifications. Law of Toxic Torts, 5(30), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dore, M. (2012b). Professional obligations of the expert witness. Law of Toxic Torts, 5(30), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evidence, Missouri Revised Statutes 490.065. (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Evidence, North Carolina General Statutes 8C-702. (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Evidence Code, Florida Statutes 90.702. (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Evidence Code, Oregon Revised Statutes 40.410. (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Evidence -Opinion and Expert Testimony, Wisconsin Statutes 907.002. (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Experts and Assessors, Civil Rules & Practice Directions, Part 35. (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Faigman, D., Blumenthal, J., Cheng, E., Mnookin, J., Murphy, E., & Sanders, J. (2011). Bases of exclusion—Lack of qualifications. Modern science evidence: The law and science of expert testimony, 3(26), 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26. (2010a).

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33. (2010b).

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34. (2010c).

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Rules of Evidence 702. (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013. (D.C. Cir. 1923).

    Google Scholar 

  • General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136. (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, M., Freedman, M., & Gordis, L. (2011). Reference guide on epidemiology. The reference manual on scientific evidence (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huss v. Gayden, 571 F.3d 442. (5th Cir. 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • Halebian, J., & Scott, J. (2011). The use of expert witnesses. Practicing Law Institute (859) 451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halebian, J., & Scott, J. (2012). The use of expert witnesses. Practicing Law Institute (884) 213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. (1996). Witness immunity under attack: Disarming “hired guns”. Wake Forest Law Review, 31, 497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, P. (1993). A new lawyer’s guide to expert use. Practical Lawyer, 39(2), 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawaii Rules of Evidence 702. (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennet, R. J.-C. (2010). Working with lawyers: The expert witness perspective. Expert Witnesses, 1(58), 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Idaho Rules of Evidence 702. (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Illinois Rules of Civil Procedure 202. (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Illinois Rules of Evidence 702. (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J., & Pogue, R. (2012). Who can testify as an expert? Toxic Torts Practice Guide, 2(16), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. (2012). How is the expert chosen? Toxic Torts Practice Guide, 2(16), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kentucky Rules of Evidence 702. (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolezynski, P. (1997). Ethical challenges for experts in civil litigation. ExpertPages. Retrieved October 6, 2012, from http://expertpages.com/news/ethical_challenges_for_experts_i.htm.

  • Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137. (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E. (1997). Expert Evidence in the Republic of Korea and under the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence: A comparative study. Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 19, 585–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louisiana Code of Evidence 702. (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Masterson, L. (1998). Witness immunity or malpractice liability for professionals hired as experts. The Review of Litigation, 17, 393–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauet, T. (2010). Trial techniques (8th ed.). New York, NY: Aspen.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, C. (4th ed. 1992). McCormick on evidence, § 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michigan Rules of Evidence 702. (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnesota Rules of Evidence 702. (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mississippi Rules of Evidence 702. (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Montana Rules of Evidence 702. (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphey, P. (1992). A practical approach to evidence (4th ed.). Vancouver, BC: Blackstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy v. A A Matthews, 841 S.W.2d 671. (Mo. en banc 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • New Hampshire Rules of Evidence 702. (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • North Dakota Rules of Evidence 702. (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, J. and Board of Contributors (2012). How are toxic torts defined? Toxic Torts Practice Guide, 1(2), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohio Rules of Evidence 702. (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  • Opinion and Expert Testimony, South Dakota Codified Laws 19-15-2. (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 702. (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237. (3rd Cir. 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Precella, K., & Bailey New, H. (September 10–11, 2009). Federal and state expert testimony under Daubert and Robinson: what’s the difference? 23rd Annual Advanced Civil Appellate Practice Course, State Bar of Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • R v. Dallagher, 1 Cr. App. R. 12. (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Regina v. Mohan, 1994 CanLII 80 (SCC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Restatement of agency (second): Agency; Principal; Agent, § 1. (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapir, G. (2007). Qualifying the expert witness: A practical voir dire. Forensic Magazine, Retrieved October 6, 2012, from http://www.forensicmag.com/article/qualifying-expert-witness-practical-voir-dire?page=0,0.

  • South Carolina Rules of Evidence 702. (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. (1996). A comparative study of expert testimony in France and the United States: Philosophical underpinnings, history, practice, and procedure. Texas International Law Journal, 31, 181–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Texas Rules of Evidence 702. (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • The Publisher’s Editorial Staff. (1990). Black’s law dictionary (6th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514. (5th Cir. 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Utah Rules of Evidence 702. (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington Rules of Evidence 702. (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Witnesses, Nevada Revised Statues 50.275. (1971).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Feirich/Mager/Green/Ryan, Carbondale, IL, USA

    Brandy L. Johnson

  2. Rynearson, Suess, Schnurbusch, & Champion, LLC, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Ryan C. Turnage & Jennifer L. Woulfe

Authors
  1. Brandy L. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryan C. Turnage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer L. Woulfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brandy L. Johnson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, Euclid Avenue 10900, Cleveland, 44106-4945, Ohio, USA

    Sana Loue

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Johnson, B.L., Turnage, R.C., Woulfe, J.L. (2013). The Epidemiologist as an Expert in Litigation. In: Loue, S. (eds) Forensic Epidemiology in the Global Context. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6738-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6738-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6737-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6738-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation