You are here: / / Scientific Expert Opinion Need Not Be Based Upon Textual Authority
,

Scientific Expert Opinion Need Not Be Based Upon Textual Authority

In determining an expert’s testimony that an MRI would have revealed any injury caused by an epidural injection was properly admitted, the Second Department explained the criteria for the admission of (scientific) expert testimony:

In determining the admissibility of expert testimony, New York follows the rule of Frye v United States …  “that expert testimony based on scientific principles or procedures is admissible but only after a principle or procedure has gained general acceptance’ in its specified field” …. The test’s limited purpose is to ascertain whether the expert’s conclusion is based upon accepted scientific principles, rather than simply the expert’s own unsupported beliefs …. When applying the Fryetest to assess the reliability of an expert’s theory of causation, “it is not necessary that the underlying support for the theory . . . consist of cases or studies considering circumstances exactly parallel to those under consideration in the litigation. It is sufficient if a synthesis of various studies or cases reasonably permits the conclusion reached by the . . . expert'” …. “The fact that there [is] no textual authority directly on point to support the [expert’s] opinion is relevant only to the weight to be given the testimony, but does not preclude its admissibility”… .

[Here the] literature established that the expert’s theory had an objective basis and was founded upon far more than theoretical speculation or a scientific hunch … . The lack of textual authority to support the theory pertained to the weight to be given to his testimony, but did not preclude its admissibility ….  LaRose v Corrao, 2013 NY Slip Op 02719, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

 

You might also like
LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS STUDENT BULLYING AND HARASSMENT ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Youthful Offender Privilege Explained/Privilege Not Waived By Denial of the Act Which Was the Subject of the Youthful Offender Adjudication in Subsequent Civil Suit
BECAUSE PROPERTY-OWNER-DEFENDANTS UNDERTOOK SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, THEIR FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THOSE EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION REQUIRED DENIAL OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF VILLAGE IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 9802; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S ANTICIPATORY-REPUDIATION COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE VILLAGE’S PARTICIPATION IN DISCOVERY WAS NOT DESIGNED TO MISLEAD THE DEFENDANT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
ACTION AGAINST GAS COMPANY FOR CONTAMINATION OF REAL PROPERTY ACCRUED WHEN INJURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED AND WAS TIME BARRED; ACTION FOR NUISANCE RELATING TO REMEDIATION EFFORTS, HOWEVER, IS SUBJECT TO A DIFFERENT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROVISION AND WAS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT MADE TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUESTS FOR COUNSEL, HIS STATEMENT AND A BUCCAL SWAB SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, ERROR NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
CRIMINAL LAW/SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) Criteria for Downward Departure Explained (Not Met Here)
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE TOOK ADEQUATE STEPS TO LEARN THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE CAB IN WHICH SHE WAS A PASSENGER WHEN THE CAB WAS STRUCK BY A HIT AND RUN DRIVER; PETITIONER SOUGHT TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for Professional Negligence Actions Against Accountant Not in Privity... Slip and Fall Action Based On “Trivial Defect” Dismissed