Lommen Abdo appellate attorney Kay Nord Hunt was quoted in the November 10, 2014 American Law Litigation Daily about an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision addressing the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts, Johnson v. Mead Johnson, LLC, 754 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2014). Ms. Hunt was successful in obtaining a reversal of the summary judgment against the firm’s client in that matter. The case was remanded back to the federal district court for trial where it is currently pending. The Litigation Daily wrote:
“The Eighth Circuit said the district court had gone beyond its mandated gatekeeper role to a factfinder role,” said Kay Nord Hunt, a partner at Lommen Abdo who represents plaintiff Scott Johnson. “It is telling district courts to make sure they do not go too far.”
The underlying case was brought on behalf of an infant who contracted a severe form of neonatal meningitis caused by a bacterium called Cronobacter sakazakii, or C. sak. Johnson, the child’s guardian ad litem, alleged that the source of the infection was contaminated Enfamil infant formula produced by Mead Johnson. The company countered that the contamination could have come from other sources, including water or the home environment.
The Eighth Circuit Court stated that “District courts are admonished not to weigh or assess the correctness of competing expert opinions. As long as the expert’s scientific testimony rests upon ‘good grounds, based on what is known’ it should be tested by the adversary process with competing expert testimony and cross examination, rather than excluded by the court at the outset.”
- Read the full decision.
- Read the Appellatory blog about the decision: http://appellatory.com/eighth-circuit-affirms-use-differential-etiological-analysis/#more-143.