New York appeals court allows single-case evidence

Doctors say the decision opens the door for "junk science."

By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. May 1, 2006.

If a New York appeals court ruling that loosened rules for expert witness testimony allowed in medical liability cases stands, physicians say it will open the gate for unreliable scientific evidence to enter the courtroom.

In a unanimous opinion, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, the state's intermediate level, said experts did not need to show peer-reviewed medical literature to prove that their medical opinion was accepted in the scientific community. Judges found that a lower court applied the testimony rule "too restrictively" when it wouldn't allow the testimony and dismissed the case.

Physicians say the appeals court ruling defies state precedent upholding rigorous scrutiny of what testimony is permitted to be heard by jurors. If the courts don't adhere to the standard, physicians say, ripple effects could cause meritless lawsuits to enter the legal system.

Lawyers for the physician in the case are asking the appeals court to reconsider. If that doesn't happen, they will ask the state's high court to overturn the ruling. The medical community has weighed in on the physician's side, with doctors and a pharmaceutical company fearing that the ruling would be used as an example for other courts to relax the rule if it's not reversed.

"There should be a high standard, and it's up to the courts to make sure that any medical theory being [presented] actually has the support of the profession," said Donald Moy, general counsel to the Medical Society of the State of New York, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the American Medical Association and Pfizer. The company didn't manufacture the drug in the lawsuit but does not want to see a precedent set.