Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology

2018 Edition
| Editors: Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca, Bruce Caplan

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)

  • Robert L. HeilbronnerEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57111-9_962

Definition

This case involved two persons, Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller, who had been born with severe birth defects. Along with their parents, they sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical Inc. based on the claim that the drug Bendectin had caused their birth defects. Merrell Dow had the case placed in federal court and moved for summary judgment due to the fact that their expert witness provided documents indicating that no published scientific study existed to provide support for a causal relationship between Bendectin and birth defects. By contrast, Daubert and Schuller provided their own expert evidence which indicated that Bendectin could indeed lead to birth defects. This expert testimony was based primarily on in vitro and in vivo animal studies, pharmaceutical studies, and a reanalysis of already published studies. However, because such methodologies had not garnered acceptance within the scientific community, the court awarded summary judgment to Merrell Dow. Daubert and Schuller...

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

References and Readings

  1. Chapple v. Ganger, 851 F. Supp. 1481, E.D. of Washington (1998).Google Scholar
  2. Daubert vs. Merrell Dow, 509, U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
  3. Frye v. U.S. D.C. Cir., 293 F. 1013 (1923).Google Scholar
  4. Greiffenstein, M. F., & Cohen, L. (2005). Neuropsychology and the law: Principles of productive attorney – Neuropsychologist relations. In G. Larrabee (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: A scientific approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Joiner v. General Electric, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).Google Scholar
  6. Kumho Tire v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999).Google Scholar
  7. Reed, J. E. (1996). Fixed versus flexible neuropsychological test batteries under the Daubert standard for admissibility of scientific evidence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14, 315–322.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chicago Neuropsychology GroupChicagoUSA