Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Facts

Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller were minor children born with serious birth defects. They and their parents sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in California state court, alleging that the birth defects were caused by their mothers' ingestion of Bendectin, a prescription antinausea drug marketed by Merrell Dow. Merrell Dow removed the suits to federal district court on diversity grounds. After extensive discovery, Merrell Dow moved for summary judgment. It contended that Bendectin does not cause human birth defects and that the plaintiffs could not produce admissible evidence that it does. In support, Merrell Dow submitted an affidavit from Doctor Steven H. Lamm, an epidemiologist. Doctor Lamm reviewed more than 30 published studies covering over 130,000 patients and reported that no study had found Bendectin to be a human teratogen, meaning a substance capable of causing malformations in fetuses. He concluded maternal use during the first trimester was not shown to be a risk factor. The plaintiffs did not contest this summary of the published record. Instead, they offered testimony from eight well-credentialed experts who concluded Bendectin can cause birth defects. These experts relied on test-tube and live-animal studies finding a link to malformations, pharmacological analyses of chemical structures, and unpublished recalculations of data from previously published human epidemiological studies.

Issues

1. Did the Federal Rules of Evidence supersede the Frye general acceptance standard for the admission of expert scientific testimony in federal trials?
2. Does Federal Rule of Evidence 702 require a trial judge to determine whether proffered expert scientific testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand?

Holding

The Frye general acceptance standard did not survive the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Rules, especially Rule 702, instead assign the trial judge the task of ensuring that expert testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant. Because the inquiries below focused almost exclusively on general acceptance, measured by publication and other courts' decisions, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded.