Two Faces of Causality: A Small Case Study of the Admission of Scientific Evidence to Show Causality in a Bias and a Toxic Tort Case in the 4th Circuit.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Research Methodology Chapter 1.
Advertisements

Unit 3 AoS 3 Revision DP 5: Strengths and weaknesses of law making through the courts DP 6: The relationship between parliament and the courts in law making.
Correlational and Differential Research
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS OF FORENSIC SCIENCE CHAPTER 2.
Employment Webinar The grievance process, workplace disputes and the use of mediation.
V erona – Milano
Causality Causality Hill’s Criteria Cross sectional studies.
ADMISSIBILITY OF TRACE EVIDENCE: A WHOLELISTIC APPROACH-- DESPITE DAUBERT Kenneth E. Melson.
Professor Victor D. Quintanilla Indiana University, Maurer School of Law May 23, 2013 Law & Social Psychology.
The Process of Litigation. What is the first stage in a civil lawsuit ?  Service of Process (the summons)
Courts and Court Systems Chapter 2. Copyright © 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning Objectives Explain the difference between trial and appellate courts. Explain.
Critiquing Research Articles For important and highly relevant articles: 1. Introduce the study, say how it exemplifies the point you are discussing 2.
© 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Chapter 1 Explaining Behavior.
“And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright – tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes.
Association to Causation. Sequence of Studies Clinical observations Available data Case-control studies Cohort studies Randomized trials.
Business and Its Legal Environment (Mgmt 246) Alternative Dispute Resolution (Chapter 3) Professor Charles H. Smith Fall 2010.
©2007 Prentice Hall Organizational Behavior: An Introduction to Your Life in Organizations Chapter 19 OB is for Life.
Single-Subject Designs
Law and Social Science L6172 M,W 1:20 – 2:35 WJH 104 Professor Jeffrey Fagan JG Office Hours M,W 10: :00.
COEN 252 Computer Forensics Writing Computer Forensics Reports.
1 Sally J. Rockey, PhD Deputy Director for Extramural Research National Institutes of Health NIH Regional Seminar on Program Funding And Grants Administration.
PERSPECTIVES ON DAUBERT: AVOIDING AND EXPLOITING “ANALYTICAL GAPS” IN EXPERT TESTIMONY Richard O. Faulk Chair, Litigation Department Gardere Wynne Sewell,
Virginia Standard of Learning BIO.1a-m
Epidemiology The Basics Only… Adapted with permission from a class presentation developed by Dr. Charles Lynch – University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Causation and the Rules of Inference Classes 4 and 5.
SCIENCE AND LAW The case of the Italian Supreme Court ruling Paolo Vecchia Former Chairman of ICNIRP 1.
Civil litigation begins with pleadings: formal papers filed with the court by the plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff - the person bringing the lawsuit.
2007 CCRI Critical Thinking C onference Coming to Terms With Critical Thinking Presented By: Daniel J. Donovan, J.D. Professor Legal Studies.
The Method Skeptic Debate For and Against. Forensic Concepts The nature of expert testimony Admissibility is determined by legal statute and court precedent;
Web of Causation; Exposure and Disease Outcomes Thomas Songer, PhD Basic Epidemiology South Asian Cardiovascular Research Methodology Workshop.
The Nature of Evidence A Guide to Legal Evidence & the Courts.
Faculty Senate Gender Equity Task Force Report K. Klimek (Chair) History, R. Hernandez-Julian, L. Hathorn, A. Sgoutas, K. Elkins, B. Mathews.
Chapter What would likely happen to Anthony if he turns to the courts for help in ending the discrimination? 2. Does Anthony have a duty to anyone,
Welcome to Econ 325 Economics of Gender Week 9 Beginning March 26.
Grobman, K. H. "Confirmation Bias." Teaching about. Developmentalpsychology.org, Web. 16 Sept Sequence Fits the instructor's Rule? Guess.
FORENSIC SCIENTISTS, EXPERT TESTIMONY Notes 1.3. Objectives 1. Explain the role and responsibilities of the expert witness. 2. Compare and contrast the.
Skills of a Forensic Scientist & Frye vs. Daubert Standards
Ch The Role of the Federal Courts. Laws and Courts Legal conflicts are resolved by courts of law Legal conflicts are resolved by courts of law Apply.
“Facts are not science – as the dictionary is not literature” –Martin H. Fischer If science is not facts, what is it?
Chapter 10: The Judicial Branch
Design and Analysis of Clinical Study 2. Bias and Confounders Dr. Tuan V. Nguyen Garvan Institute of Medical Research Sydney, Australia.
What is Science? or 1.Science is concerned with understanding how nature and the physical world work. 2.Science can prove anything, solve any problem,
Unit 3: Credibility of Health Claims. Credibility of health claims How do you know what to believe? What makes information reliable? Can you really lose.
CATHERINE ALBISTON UC ADVANCE GRANT ROUNDTABLE APRIL 11, 2012 Empirically-Based Search Practices.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008 Intelligent Consumer Chapter 14 This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following.
Research Methods for Business
Practices and Predictors of the Use of Accommodations by University Faculty to Support College Students with Disabilities Leena Jo Landmark, M.Ed., and.
What is Forensic Science? the study and application of science to matters of law… it examines the associations among people, places, things and events.
Cross examination Is the DNA a mixture of two or more people? How did you calculate the match statistic? What is the scientific basis of that calculation?
YR 12 LEGAL STUDIES How courts make law. Chapter overview This chapter looks at the concepts of Common law Doctrine of precedent Judgments and precedents.
SIMPSON’S PARADOX Any statistical relationship between two variables may be reversed by including additional factors in the analysis. Application: The.
CAUSALITY ASSESSMENT OF SUSPECTED AEs Dr. Retesh Kumar Head, Global PhV Department 12/13/2015.
CORRELATIONS: PART II. Overview  Interpreting Correlations: p-values  Challenges in Observational Research  Correlations reduced by poor psychometrics.
Finding, Evaluating, and Presenting Evidence Sharon E. Lock, PhD, ARNP NUR 603 Spring, 2001.
1 What Is Scientific Evidence? Scientific evidence is most often presented in court by an expert witness testifying on expert opinions. It also includes.
Evidence and Expert Testimony. Expert Testimony  Two Types of Witnesses: Fact and Expert  Fact -- have personal knowledge of facts of case  Cannot.
Chapter 11.1 The Lower Courts The Federal Court System consists of 2 parts –The Lower Courts –The Supreme Court.
September 10, 2012 Warm-up: Use pg. 13 in your text book to answer the following question: 1.What was the most significant modern advance in forensic science?
Admissibility. The Frye Standard  1923 – became the standard guideline for determining the judicial admissibility of scientific examinations. To meet.
The Law & Forensics Chapters 1-3 (Some information not found in textbook)
11/6/07 BR- Can you explain how OJ Simpson was found innocent of the murder of his wife but lost a $50 million dollar lawsuit suit to her parents? Today:
Introduction Forensic science begins at the crime scene.
Significance testing Introduction to Intervention Epidemiology
Causation Analysis in Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Association to Causation
Choosing a test: ... start from thinking whether our variables are continuous or discrete.
Relationship Relation: Association: real and spurious Statistical:
1-3 Functions of a Forensic Scientist
Precedent.
The Expert Valuation Witness and the Different Procedural Models in European Court Proceedings . Associate Prof. (Dr. hab. Magdalena Habdas.
Presentation transcript:

Two Faces of Causality: A Small Case Study of the Admission of Scientific Evidence to Show Causality in a Bias and a Toxic Tort Case in the 4th Circuit Christina Kirk Pikas LBSC 735: Legal Issues in Information Management December 11, 2002

Overview Review of the efforts made to form the admissibility of scientific evidence Review of the efforts made to form the admissibility of scientific evidence Discussion of causality and the scientific and the statistical methods used to prove Discussion of causality and the scientific and the statistical methods used to prove Case studies of two cases: Case studies of two cases: Product liability Product liability Pay discrimination Pay discrimination

Admission of Expert Evidence 19 th century 19 th century Frye (1923) Frye (1923) Federal Rules of Evidence (1975) Federal Rules of Evidence (1975) Daubert Trilogy Daubert Trilogy Daubert (1993) Daubert (1993) Joiner (1997) Joiner (1997) Kumho (1999) Kumho (1999)

Causality Definition: “The principle of causal relationship; the relation between cause and effect” (Black’s Law Dictionary) Definition: “The principle of causal relationship; the relation between cause and effect” (Black’s Law Dictionary) Cause: “To bring about or effect” (Black’s Law Dictionary) Cause: “To bring about or effect” (Black’s Law Dictionary) Correlation, association, or statistically significant relationship is not enough Correlation, association, or statistically significant relationship is not enough Primary issue in Primary issue in Toxic torts Toxic torts Product liability Product liability Discrimination Discrimination

General vs. Specific Causality General (examples: toxicology, epidemiology) General (examples: toxicology, epidemiology) anecdotal evidence anecdotal evidence observational studies observational studies controlled experiments controlled experiments Specific Specific Treating Doctor Treating Doctor Series of specific details such as Series of specific details such as Biological plausibility Consideration of alternate hypotheses Cessation of exposure Temporal relationship Strength and specificity of association Dose-response relationship Consistent with other knowledge

Case 1: Nettles v. Proctor & Gamble Ms. Nettles used Vicks Sinex Nasal Spray and later became blind Ms. Nettles used Vicks Sinex Nasal Spray and later became blind A neuro-opthalmologist was produced to give evidence on her case A neuro-opthalmologist was produced to give evidence on her case No studies existed linking the main ingredient to her condition No studies existed linking the main ingredient to her condition Only temporal connection was found Only temporal connection was found As per Joiner – court did was neither arbitrary or capricious, decision was affirmed As per Joiner – court did was neither arbitrary or capricious, decision was affirmed

Case 2: Smith, et al v. Virginia Commonwealth University VCU employed a committee to determine if there was a discrepancy in pay between male and female tenure and tenure-track professors VCU employed a committee to determine if there was a discrepancy in pay between male and female tenure and tenure-track professors The committee used a multiple regression analysis and determined that there was a $1,300 difference. Another committee was started to review CVs and give deserving female employees appropriate raises. The committee used a multiple regression analysis and determined that there was a $1,300 difference. Another committee was started to review CVs and give deserving female employees appropriate raises.

Case 2: continued Plaintiffs Allege Plaintiffs Allege Not fair because raises based only on gender Not fair because raises based only on gender Inflated pool – more males had been administrators and therefore had higher pay Inflated pool – more males had been administrators and therefore had higher pay Analysis not valid because did not take into account major factors relating to pay, namely performance Analysis not valid because did not take into account major factors relating to pay, namely performance Trial Court Trial Court Proxies were sufficient, regression study valid, pay handed out fairly, to correct inequity Proxies were sufficient, regression study valid, pay handed out fairly, to correct inequity Summary Judgment awarded to VCU Summary Judgment awarded to VCU

Case 2: Continued Appeals Court Appeals Court Regression did not take into account performance factors, not invalid, but probative value in question Regression did not take into account performance factors, not invalid, but probative value in question If material issues exist, should not have been a Summary Judgment, reversed. If material issues exist, should not have been a Summary Judgment, reversed. Analysis Analysis If the lower court had employed Daubert factors, the summary judgment was correct If the lower court had employed Daubert factors, the summary judgment was correct The initial study was invalid – it poorly fit the real situation under study The initial study was invalid – it poorly fit the real situation under study

Conclusion Complexity of new cases, commingling of evidence, junk science make the gatekeeper role very important Complexity of new cases, commingling of evidence, junk science make the gatekeeper role very important Judges see expert evidence 90 days before trial Judges see expert evidence 90 days before trial Many courses, books, and studies exists to help train judges Many courses, books, and studies exists to help train judges Judges can appoint neutral experts to help interpret the evidence Judges can appoint neutral experts to help interpret the evidence

More Conclusions Scientific methods and statistics are being used for purposes for which they were not designed Scientific methods and statistics are being used for purposes for which they were not designed Statistics don’t prove anything – give relative probability Statistics don’t prove anything – give relative probability Toxicology and epidemiology – give relative risk Toxicology and epidemiology – give relative risk Statistical significance and practical significance are not the same Statistical significance and practical significance are not the same

Finally Daubert provides a useful framework if flexibly employed Daubert provides a useful framework if flexibly employed Resulting summary judgments save time and money Resulting summary judgments save time and money It’s still easy to lie with statistics It’s still easy to lie with statistics