Summary and Conclusions

  • Andrew W. Kane


Causality is at issue throughout psychological injury cases. The Supreme Courts of the United States (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993) and Canada (R. v. Mohan, 1994) have provided a framework within which evidence may be presented in federal courts, subject to the gatekeeping of the judge in the trial court. In most cases, expert testimony will be accepted if it is both relevant to the case and helpful to the trier of fact. In both countries, however, expert testimony may be limited or excluded if it has neither a strong clinical basis nor a strong foundation in the research literature, especially literature that is peer-reviewed. In nearly all cases, appellate courts have found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in accepting, limiting, or excluding expert testimony. Most state and provincial courts follow rules similar to those of the federal courts, though data regarding admissibility in state and provincial courts are not readily available.


Federal Court Expert Testimony Incremental Validity Psychological Injury Trial Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed. 2d 469 (1993).Google Scholar
  2. R. v. Mohan [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9, 1994 CanLII 80 (S.C.C.).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew W. Kane
    • 1
  1. 1.Milwaukee

Personalised recommendations