The complex world of personal injury law requires that you prove a number of things before you can collect compensation by way of damages. These claims start with proving the at-fault party owed you a duty of care to ensure you are kept safe and free from harm or injury, and that they acted in a reasonable manner to do so. If it is discovered that they breached this duty of care leading to your suffering of injuries, you may be able to recover damages for your injuries that are linked to this breach. That said, evidence plays a central role in a successful claim, and experts who are able to put this evidence into the context of your claim are required to provide testimony that can show your injuries may not have occurred were it not for the negligence of the defendant.

While most personal injury claims do not get litigated in a court of law and are instead settled via negotiations, those that do rely on this testimony in order to have a successful outcome. That said, expert testimony must pass through a strict judicial filter before its admissibility to a jury. In the U.S, two forms of legal standards govern the admissibility of expert testimony; the Frye and the Daubert standard. In this post, we shall examine both and indicate which one applies to your case as it will inform our approach when it comes to getting you maximum compensation for your injury claim – read on to find out more.

Get Experienced Legal Help Today!

Are you looking for the best countrywide injury lawyer? Please reach out to us NOW at (314) 481-63338 to learn more about your legal options for justice and compensation. The experienced injury lawyers at McCready Law bring to the table combined legal experience which spans over 90 YEARS where we’ve helped tens of thousands of injured Americans across the country and from all socioeconomic backgrounds recover compensation after getting injured due to the negligent actions of other individuals.

We have been able to successfully recover over $260 million and counting over the last couple of decades, with a lot of these settlements and judgments ranging in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for clients with catastrophic or disabling injuries, as well as families whose members lost their lives due to gross negligence.

Our success can be attributed to a number of unique actions that you may never experience in other law firms such as personally handling all claims and not shunting them to paralegals or legal assistants as is common practice in most law firms, engaging highly trained and renowned medical, forensics, investigative and accounting experts in order to create a compelling case replete with evidence which demonstrates causation and quantifies your damages in a way that is financially comprehensive.

We run a bilingual firm (hablamos Español), and we have nationwide reach thanks to our vast and trusted network of referral attorneys. Last but not least is the fact that we take on all cases on contingency fee basis, which simply means that there are ZERO UPFRONT FEES for the duration of the processing of your claim, as we only levy our fees at the end of the suit, and only if we’ve recovered compensation on your behalf. If you or a loved one got injured in an auto accident, slip and fall, daycare center, at a factory or construction site, at an offshore rig or sporting event, on a boat and you suspect negligence had a central role to play in said injuries, give us a call NOW at (314) 481-63338 to learn more about your legal options for justice and compensation – our intake team is standing by.

Witness Testimony in Injury Claims – What Standards are Typically Followed?

Historically, experts were given deference in courts as they were seen as bastions of knowledge that both parties as well as the judge and jury may not have. That said, advancements in the scientific and medical fields over the decades unveiled a need for a more robust method to scrutinize their opinions in order to ensure that said opinions were based in solid theory and that juries didn’t believe any fly-by-night theory.

Consequently, this led to the development of the following standards:

• The Frye Standard

This standard originated from the 1923 Frye v. United States case where there were issues with regard to the admissibility of polygraph tests. As a result of this, the court established a foundational test; in order for either expert testimony or scientific evidence to be admissible, the underlying scientific principle or discovery must have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

This standard places importance in the following:

• Community-driven consensus where the methodology is widely accepted within the relevant scientific community
• A conservative filter where the standard keeps at bay any cutting-edge or controversial any scientific techniques that haven’t gained widespread recognition
• Limited judicial role whereby the judge simply assesses whether general acceptance exists and doesn’t deeply scrutinize the science itself.

The Daubert Standard

This standard originated from the landmark ruling in the 1993 Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. case where litigation involving the drug Benedictin concluded that the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 702 superseded the Frye standards for federal courts. This standard saw the beginning of assigning federal trial judges a more proactive and dynamic gatekeeping role requiring judges to ensure that expert testimony is not only relevant but that it is also fundamentally reliable.

This standard has a checklist that must be followed:

• Can the expert’s theory be empirically tested and can it be disproven?
• Has the methodology been subjected to peer review and has it been published in scientific journals? This degree of validation may speak to its legitimacy
• What is the known potential error rate and if this exists, is there a standard that is well-known to minimize error?

In addition, here are elements of the Daubert standard

• Judges are active participants and perform a detailed inquiry into the underlying methodology and reasoning of the expert’s opinion
• The Daubert standard is designed to be flexible, allowing for the admission of new scientific theories as long as they prove they are reliable by these standards.
• The standard was later broadened to include technical and other forms of specialized knowledge and not just scientific testimony, including fields such as accounting, engineering, vocational rehabilitation and so on.

Best Nationwide Injury Lawyers – Call Us Today!

If you were injured by the negligent actions of another party and are worried about how experts will support your claims, leave the heavy lifting to us. We shall source these experts and ensure their expertise and experience are in line with the facts of your claim. Please call us NOW at (314) 481-63338 if you got injured and are seeking compensation so you can rebuild your life. We take on cases countrywide and the first consultation is 100% FREE. Thanks for choosing McCready Law, and we look forward to helping you.