a)    Negligence case where delivery truck driver sued chemical company b/c he contracted a reactive airways disease as a result of exposure to defendant’s chemical gasses on his property.
b)    Lower court held that the Daubert factors didn’t apply to evidentiary reliability of expert clinical medical testimony.
c)    Issue was whether the Daubert Factors applied to ALL expert testimony.
d)    Court makes a distinction between “hard science” and “clinical medical testimony.”
(1)    The two have different goals, different motives, different subject matter, and different methodologies.
(2)    Motives: hard science is innovative and clinical is treatment and remedy.
(3)    Goals: hard science is understanding medicine and its nature while clinical is treatment of a patient.
(4)    Subject matter: hard science is lab testing with animals and body parts, while clinical medicine is actual humans.
(5)    Different methodologies.
e)    If you can show that there is a testable clinical methodology for arriving at a decision, and that methodology is accepted, then doing what Daubert requires.
f)    HELD: The hard science techniques and methods that became the Daubert Factors generally are not appropriate for assessing the evidentiary reliability of a proffer of expert clinical medical testimony.