In 2018 Louisiana Supreme Court narrowed the area of challenge by a Daubert Motion as to expert testimony.

The Louisiana Supreme Court noted in a 2018 decision that Daubert does not require an expert to provide a “quantitative assessment to prove causation,” and the lower court “failed to recognize the plaintiffs could meet their burden of proving causation through either a quantitative or a qualitative assessment of fipronil exposure.” In this case, the experts performed a qualitative assessment and determined that exposure to fipronil caused the plaintiffs injuries.
Finally, the Court held that any conflicts among the experts’ testimony should be considered as a credibility determination, which did not affect whether the experts’ opinions were admissible or not. The court stated, a party’s expert can use either a qualitative or quantitative methodology to meet the burden of proving causation, as both are acceptable under Daubert.

Waiting to see how this direction is used by the lower courts.

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group