Expert opinion is a specialized conclusion or inference drawn by a qualified individual in a field of expertise. These conclusions are designed to help the fact-finder understand complex issues in a case and serve as one of several tools that the court uses to assist it in its gatekeeping function. For expert testimony to be admissible, it must be grounded in reliable methods and data that are commonly relied upon by professionals in the expert’s subject area. In its Daubert line of cases, the Supreme Court has outlined a variety of factors that may be relevant to this analysis, including the reliability of scientific techniques as an empirical endeavor and whether such techniques are known to have error rates and standards for their operation.
Ultimately, however, the trial judge must evaluate the proffered expert’s opinion practically and flexibly without bright-line exclusionary (or inclusionary) rules. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1175 (1999) (holding that the factors mentioned in Daubert are neither exclusive nor dispositive) and other cases have emphasized this point.
As a result, when evaluating expert testimony, it is important for attorneys to challenge the foundational facts upon which an opinion rests. To do so, attorneys should carefully review the expert’s reports and other records, paying particular attention to any inconsistencies or omissions.
In addition, it is crucial that attorneys challenge the expert’s conclusions by requesting the expert to explain how the expert reached his/her conclusion and how such conclusion was reliably applied to the facts in question. By addressing these issues, an attorney can ensure that expert testimony is admissible.
About the Author
