Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
126 F.3d 679 (1997)
- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Bob Moore (plaintiff) filed suit against his employer, Ashland Chemical, Inc. (defendant), after Moore developed a lung disease that he believed was caused by work-related exposure to the chemical toluene. Moore obtained expert testimony from the clinical physicians who treated him. The district court rejected the opinions of the clinical physicians under the Daubert standard, finding that the absence of matters like methodological testing and peer review from clinical medical treatment meant that the opinions were not admissible as expert testimony. After a trial at which Moore was awarded no damages, Moore appealed to the circuit court. Moore argued on appeal that the trial had erred in applying a “hard science” standard to clinical medicine. Moore further argued that the absence of Daubert standard factors from clinical medicine should not render the clinical physicians’ opinions inadmissible but that those opinions should properly be admissible if the physicians’ opinions were based on the principles, methods, and procedures of clinical medicine.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dennis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.