I read with great interest Michael Hoenig’s column, “Expert Frye’d on Tylenol-Cirrhosis Link,” (Dec. 12) dealing with experts and when expert testimony should be deemed reliable based on the scientific evidence it is founded upon.
Although in theory everyone can agree that the court should only permit reliable scientific evidence, determining what testimony is reliable and deemed to be scientifically accepted is like attempting to herd cats or in scholastic terms, explaining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
