ABSTRACT
The admissibility of expert testimony in federal and state courts has evolved into a major issue related to civil cases of personal injury and life care planning. This chapter discusses the history and development of rules and regulations which govern the testimony of an expert and clarifies some issues and confusion regarding the intent and meaning of recent court cases on this issue. Three United States Supreme Court cases are referred to as the Daubert trilogy. They are: Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical, General Electric Company v. Joiner, and Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael. The Daubert decision was a departure of the long-held decision of Frye v. United States and further emphasized the substantial importance of the Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Daubert challenge is an in limine motion to exclude by either the plaintiff or defense usually directed toward an expert regarding the expert's credentials, attention to procedure, or methodology issues.
