Tag: Semantics dispute

The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument to exclude the Defense expert’s opinion that high mitotic rates correlate with poor prognosis. While the Plaintiff insisted this equated to an unreliable, unsupported “prediction” of causation, the court found the dispute merely semantic. The expert never explicitly opined mitotic rates “predict” malignancy. Rather, he suggested an “association” or “correlation” based on his experience and medical literature. The court held this methodology provides a reliable basis for the expert’s opinions relevant to delayed diagnosis issues. Defendants satisfied Rule 702 standards. Despite semantics, the expert can offer his correlation opinion at trial, subject to Plaintiff’s cross-examination. The court weighed the reliable basis over wording disputes in denying the motion to strike.
#rule702 #expertwitness #experttestimony