The subject of expert witness testimony is up for debate in a case before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
In Motorola v. Murray, the issue now before the court is the standards for qualifications of expert witnesses who testify on scientific issues. Nearly 30 lawsuits have been filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against cell phone manufacturers, alleging that plaintiffs incurred brain cancer as a result of using their cell phones. To prove their cases, the plaintiffs proffered experts who were prepared to testify “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” that cell phones are more likely than not a cause or catalyst of brain cancer.
Based on the information provided, the court determined that, while some scientific data suggest a possible causal connection between cell phone use and brain cancer, there isn’t enough research to date for scientists to determine that connection with the requisite degree of certainty.
The court observed that most jurisdictions other than the District of Columbia courts follow a restrictive standard. Under this standard, the proposed testimony would be inadmissible on account of the insufficiency of supporting data. However, the court went on to find, the District of Columbia rule is that the jury, not the court, should be allowed to determine the credibility of the expert witnesses.
Because of this standard, the plaintiffs’ expert witness testimony was found admissible. The defendants appealed the decision.
In support of Motorola and the other defendants, the Litigation Center of the AMA and State Medical Societies and the Medical Society of the District of Columbia filed a friend-of-the-court brief holding that the trial court should have found the testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts inadmissible. As part of its general effort to curb lawsuit abuse, the Litigation Center supports restrictive standards for the introduction of expert testimony in medical liability litigation.
“By its very nature, expert testimony addresses questions that are beyond the ken of the average lay juror,” the brief said.
Visit the AMA Litigation Center’s Web page to learn more about this case and others related to expert witnesses.
