No. 18-327
N. K., an Infant, By His Mother and Natural Guardian, Tanja Bruestle-Kumra v. Abbott Laboratories
Tags: alternative-causation alternative-cause causation-opinion daubert daubert-standard daubert-v-merrell-dow differential-diagnosis expert-testimony expert-testimony-admissibility federal-rule-of-evidence-702 genetic-causation genetic-testing rule-702
Latest Conference:
2019-01-04
Question Presented (from Petition)
For an expert's causation opinion to be admissible, do Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert require additional testing of a plaintiff to eliminate the possibility of an alternative cause pointed to by a defendant, where the expert completed a differential diagnosis and explained how that alternative cause was ruled out?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether additional genetic testing is required to eliminate a possible alternative cause when an expert has completed a differential diagnosis and explained why that alternative cause was ruled out
Docket Entries
2019-01-07
Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2018-11-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-11-27
Reply of petitioner N. K., An Infant by his Mother and Natural Guardian, Tanja Bruestle-Kumra filed.
2018-11-14
Brief of respondent Abbott Laboratories in opposition filed.
2018-10-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 14, 2018.
2018-10-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 15, 2018 to November 14, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-09-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 15, 2018)
Attorneys
Abbott Laboratories
Mitchell Y. Mirviss — Venable LLP, Respondent
N. K., An Infant by his Mother and Natural Guardian, Tanja Bruestle-Kumra
Leonard Leigh Finz — Finz & Finz, P.C., Petitioner