William Daubert, et Ux., Etc., et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (509 U.S. 579)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 28, 1993 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 509 U.S. 579 · 113 S. Ct. 2786
- Decided
- June 28, 1993
- Term
- October Term 1992
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Blackmun
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case we are called upon to determine the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial. I Petitioners Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller are minor children born with serious birth defects. They and their parents sued respondent in California state court, alleging that the birth defects had been caused by the mothers’ ingestion of Bendectin, a prescription antinausea drug marketed by respondent. Respondent removed the suits to federal court on diversity grounds. After extensive discovery, respondent moved for summary judgment, contending that Bendectin does not cause birth defects in humans and that petitioners would be unable to come forward with any admissible evidence that it does. In support of its motion, respondent submitted an affidavit of Steven H. Lamm, physician and epidemiologist, who is a well-credentialed expert on the risks from exposure to various chemical substances. Doctor Lamm stated that he had reviewed all the literature on Bendectin and human birth defects — more than 30 published studies involving over 130,000 patients. No study had found Bendectin to be a human teratogen (i e., a substance capable of causing malformations in fetuses). On the basis of this review, Doctor Lamm concluded that maternal use of Bendectin during the first trimester of pregnancy has not been shown…
Excerpt of a 33,591-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.