*1 Mfg. Corp.; Patent Firearms teed Colts corpus.4 habeas a writ of anee of Inc.; Co.; Engineering, Combustion Crane-Houdaille, Inc.; Dar Indus John Products, Inc.; Corpo trial Fibreboard Flexitallic, Inc.; ration; Foster Wheeler Garlock, Company; Corporation; GAF Co.; Inc.; Corp.; Electric Gatke General Co.; Insulating Mfg. General Good year Company; And Rubber Imo Tire Inc.; Gypsum; Delaval, Kaiser Cement & HOLBROOK, Administratrix of A. Grace Corporation; Manufac Keene National P. Holbrook the Estate of John Sales; Owens-Corning Fiberglas turing Inc.; Owens-Illinois, Corp.; Philadel v. phia Company; Indus Asbestos PPG CO., INC.; LYKES BROS. STEAMSHIP Products; Pittsburgh tries; Pabco Corn Inc.; Transport Puerto Lines Marine Pic.; ing Corporation; Turner & Newall Mgmt., Inc.; Sea-Land Ser Rico Marine Plastics Chemicals & Union Carbide Inc.; Shipmor vice, Associates Second Co., Inc.; Gypsum Company; U.S. U.S. Company; Westinghouse Elec Rubber v. Gyp Corp.; ACMC, National tric f/k/a COMPANY; & WILCOX The BABCOCK Company sum Inc.; Engineering, Foster- Combustion Energy Corporation; The Gen Wheeler Holbrook, Appeal Adminis of Grace Co.; Corporation, Electric Keene eral tratrix for the Estate of John Independently in Inter and as Successor Holbrook, Appellant. P. Manufacturing Magnesia Ehret est Company No. 94-2148. Company, Baldwin-Hill Inc.; Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Owens-Corn Appeals, Court of United States Pittsburgh Corning Fiberglas Corp.; Third Circuit. Company; Packing Corporation; Anchor Compa S, Inc.; Flexitallic AC & Gasket Sept. Argued 1995. Inc.; Inc.; Garlock, ny, Owens-Illinois March 1996. Company; Armstrong In Decided World Glass Inc.; Inc.; Brothers, dustries, Hopeman Fletcher; Gypsum National
Shook & Party Corporation,
Corp.; Third GAF
Defendants HOLBROOK, Administratrix for A.
Grace P. Holbrook
the Estate of John
ACANDS, INC.; Prod American Asbestos Co.; Co.; Packing A.P.
ucts Anchor Company; Arm Refractories Green Asarco; Industries, Inc.;
strong World Corporation;
Asbestospray Asbestos Co.; Company; B.F. Goodrich
Textile Company; Certain Asbestos
Caroline Upon constitutionally jury charge defective. re- ruling Sixth on Guzman's In view of our request claim, expected can be counsel we need not consider Amendment instruction, by the if it is warranted in- an alibi of an alibi claim that the omission further struction, requested, evidence. rendered which was not *3 Jaques, Krispin,
Leonard Donald A. C. (argued) Jaques Admiralty Michael Connor Firm, Detroit, MI, Appellant. Law for Mattioni, Mattioni, Faustino Mattioni & Mattioni, PA, Philadelphia, Appellee for Lykes Bros. Cook, Wilbraham, Lawler, Mary B.
Robert Buba, PA, Philadelphia, & for Puerto Lawler Marine; Sea-Land; Shipmor; Rico Second Green; Acands; World; Armstrong A.P. Crane-Houdaille; GAF; Flexitallic; John Garlock; Delaval; Gypsum; Imo National Newall; Carbide; Gyp- Turner U.S. Union sum; Engineer- Westinghouse; Combustion Foster-Wheeler; ing; Owens-Corning; & Fletcher. Shook Henderson, Binzley, Harold Richard C. W. Cleveland, OH, Flory, Thompson, Hiñe & for Marine; Sea-Land; Appellees: Puerto Rico Shipmor. Second Jr., Gollatz, Griffin, Ewing, Ew- Alexander Media, PA, ing McCarthy, Appellee for & Acands. IV, Joseph
Wesley Payne, R. Office of Law Sullivan, PA, Appellee Philadelphia, P. for Houdaille. Turlik, Joseph, Phila- A. Goldfein &
John PA, Appellee delphia, for Garlock. Fox, Duane, Hecksch- R. Morris & (cid:127)Reeder PA, er, Philadelphia, Appellee for Imo Dela- val. Kadish, English,
Eric McCarter & Cher- J. Hill, NJ, ry Appellee Owens-Illinois. for (argued), Johnson & Steven T. Johnson WA, Garvin, Seattle, Appellee for Owens- Illinois. Sheri', Jones, & Zucker- A. Joffe
William Conshohocken, PA, man, Appellee for West Westinghouse. Seamans, McShea, III, Eckert, P.
John Mellott, PA, Ap- Philadelphia, for & Cherin Westinghouse. pellee argues that Hourican, documents. Holbrook Welge, & various Manta R. William judge’s was unfair and re- PA, the trial conduct Appellee Indus- for PPG Philadelphia, judge. a different quests a new trial before tries. court’s conduct did conclude We O’Brien, III, Delany, Delany & L. John that the court com- prevent a fair PA, Appellee for Combustion Philadelphia, by excluding error testimo- mitted reversible Engineering. experts. reverse ny appellant’s We will Marks, O’Neill, O’Neill, Reilly & Joseph M. trial. remand the cause for new PA, O’Brien, Philadelphia, Appellee Fos- ter-Wheeler. I. Ladner, III, Clark, Keating, E. Michael served as a merchant seaman *4 PA, Philadelphia, Young, for Fortenbaugh & shipping companies’ vessels from aboard the Appellee Electric. General ship in 1953 to 1991. He also served aboard Jasons, Kelley, Spinelli, N. Robert months in 1962 Pacific for seven the South PA, Philadelphia, for Spinelli, McGuire & testing opera- government nuclear during a Owens-Corning. Appellee trial, I.” At Holbrook tion called “Dominic Trevelise, Marilyn Heffley, Andrew J. prove that Holbrook died sought to John Reed, Smith, McClay, Philadelphia, & Shaw as a result of asbestos from mesothelioma Corning; PA, Pittsburgh Fi- Appellees: for exposure shipping vessels. aboard breboard. exposure to contended that defendants asbestos, any, if minimal and could not Miller, Joseph, & Phila- A. Goldfein Leslie and that John have caused PA, Packing. Anchor delphia, for mesothelioma, it re- suffered from Holbrook Ronon, Scarborough, Stradley, G. William during Do- sulted from radiation PA, Ap- Young, Philadelphia, & Stevens the admissibil- minic I. Both sides contested Bros. pellee Hopeman experts’ testimony. ity of various MANSMANN, SCIRICA testimo- Before: The district court excluded certain NYGAARD, Judges. ny by Carpenter, Circuit John Holbrook’s treat- Altschuler,
ing physician,
by Dr.
a board-
physician
pulmonary
in internal and
THE
certified
OF
COURT
OPINION
they lacked the
medicine. The court felt that
NYGAARD,
Judge.
Circuit
testify
to certain
requisite specialization to
as
shipping com-
sued several
John Holbrook
ruling,
part,
on
It based its
matters.
suppliers of
panies and manufacturers
and its cause
conclusion that mesothelioma
developed
he
alleging that
products,
asbestos
only
diagnose, and that
a few
are difficult to
exposure to asbestos-con-
mesothelioma
qualify to
types
specialists
of medical
would
working
aboard
taining products while
testimony
it.
give expert opinion
John Holbrook
shipping companies’ vessels.
widow,
1993,
Grace
and his
in October of
died
A.
(“Holbrook”),
of his
administratrix
Holbrook
embody a
Rules of Evidence
plaintiff. The
The Federal
estate,
was substituted
“strong
preference for admit
liability.
and undeniable
for defendants
found
any
having
potential for
evidentiary rulings by
ting
evidence
some
challenges several
now
assisting
trier of fact.” DeLuca v. Mer
court,
rul-
including the court’s
the district
Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.,
1)
911 F.2d
rell Dow
excluding
from the dece-
ings:
(3d Cir.1990).
702,
941,
“Rule
diagnosis 956
treating physician on his
dent’s
2)
admissibility
expert testimo-
governs the
mesothelioma;
excluding testimony from a
policy,”
ny, specifically embraces this
United
eliminating radiation as
pulmonologist
(3d
3)
mesothelioma;
Velasquez,
F.3d
States
cause of John
Cir.1995),
policy
a liberal
of admissi-
experts
and has
testimony by
allowing
two
4)
Litiga-
R.R. Yard PCB
cause;
bility.
In re Paoli
redact-
exposure as a
(“Paoli II”),
Cir.
tion
contained
ing references to mesothelioma
1994).
104(a)
repair,
in-
Together,
products liability
Rules 702 and
action
tractors).
involving
determining
the district court in
struct
testimony.
Rule 702 Velasquez,
understand
detail,
great
John Holbrook. In
he described
issue,
qualified
fact in
as an
witness
treatment,
injection
skill,
expert by knowledge,
experience,
chemotherapeutic agent fluorouracil into his
education,
training,
may testify
thereto
patient’s
cavity. During Carpenter’s
chest
opinion
in the form of an
or otherwise.
examination,
subject
direct
when the
turned
designed
to whether he
the treatment for a
104(a),
Rule
court
Under
the district
makes
specific malignancy,
interrupted
preliminary
pro-
whether the
determinations
and stated:
posed expert
qualified
witness is
and whether
gave
He
gave.
the treatment that he
This
given
under
to be
is admissible
qualified
witness has not been
and he will
v. Merrell Dow
Rule 702. See Daubert
permitted
give
opinion
not be
Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.,
579, -,
509 U.S.
*5
degree
certainty
reasonable
of medical
as
(1993).
2786, 2796,
I of such will have a jury waiting to be while selected.... A. your for a opportunity This was DaubeH hearing today and tomorrow. It im- interpretation of Rule DaubeH’s Under proper jurors waiting to have for several 104(a), facing proffer a district days go that might to be selected in a ease expert testimony prelimi as a scientific must on for weeks. reasoning assess nary matter whether the appropriately failed to prepare Counsel methodology underlying expert’s testimo discretion the court exercised sound in con- scientifically ny valid. The court accom orderly trolling disposition the efficient and “by plishes considering all relevant fac this unnecessary this case to avoid inconve- reliability may bear on the tors jury. nience to the proffered Velasquez, 64 F.3d at evidence.” II, 849; Paoli at 742. see also C. however, reliability requirement, should not We also no error the court’s find strictly. Helpfulness to applied too testimony. Dr. refusal to strike Demo remains the ultimate trier of fact touchstone poulos specializes pathology study —the admissibility. “good expert If the has largely His focused on disease. research has grounds” testimony, the scientific evi cancer, study subject on which he sufficiently A reliable. de dence is deemed taught, and has on which he has written good grounds that the has termination During residency, performed he articles. expert’s opinions that the are assures animals, during radiation studies “subjective than rather belief or science Health, Institutes of tenure with National Daubert, speculation.” 509 U.S. unsupported Currently, pathology. he studied radiation at-, at Demopoulos experiments S.Ct. devises to en susceptibility
hance the
of tumors to radia
protective
tion and
enhance the
effects in
B.
surrounding
protect
damage.
tissue to
knowledge
His
revealed extensive
argues
the district
oncogenesis, familiarity
of radiation
with the
gatekeeping responsibility
court failed
familiarity
Operation
I
Dominic
allowing the
to hear the radiation
exposure history
radiation
of John Holbrook.
determining its ad
testimony without first
background,
Demopoulos
this
With
missibility. The record shows otherwise.
that,
asbestos,
exposure
testified
unlike
hear
pretrial
scheduled
DaubeH
The court
no
there is
threshold
radiation
request
to determine
cancer,
required to
and that
cause
“[t]he
expo
testimony regarding
probable
most
of Mi-.
can
cause
*8
of mesothelioma was admissi
sure as a cause
exposures
was the
he
cer
that
sustained at
Inexplicably,
counsel
ble.
operations
I
Dominic
in 1962.” He based his
proceed with
unprepared to
that
seemed
opinion on a
Mr. Holbrook’s
review of
medi
the court therefore did not hold
hearing, and
radiation,
exposure
cal records and
to
and on
this,
Despite
the court nevertheless
one.
study.
his own research and
that it
to Holbrook’s counsel
would
indicated
occupational
in
specializes
Dr. Browne
to
counsel’s motion at trial
strike
entertain
lung
initially
disease
his research
fo-
testimony.
expert
the
He has
pre-
cused mesothelioma.
made
ordinarily
con-
Although DaubeH
could be
gatherings regarding
at scientific
sentations
require that
make
to
the court
the
exposure
strued
threshold levels
to asbestos and
of
jury’s
mesothelioma,
published
preliminary
resulting
determination outside the
and has
say
trial,
hearing,
papers.
we cannot
that the court abused
he
several
At
discussed his
of
knowledge
in the manner which it adhered
extensive
about studies
radia-
its discretion
cancer, including
a cause of
requirements
of Rules 104 and 702.
tion as
mesotheli-
the
testified,
degree
on the
to “a
oma. He
based
medical
reasonable
of medical certain-
relating
ty,”
to radiation and
scientific literature
must be
...
“[c]are
taken
to see
cancer,
low
of radiation can cause
doses
the incantation does not become a se-
cancer,
and that un-
trap
mantic
and the failure to voice it is not
exposure, there
no
analysis
like asbestos
is
threshold
used as a basis for exclusion without
requirement
exposure
Schulz,
for radiation to
testimony
itself.”
942 F.2d at
that,
Nonetheless,
Schulz,
cause cancer. He further testified
in 208.
as we stated in
opinion
degree
to a reasonable
of medical
phrase
expression
the
“is a useful shorthand
certainty,
exposure
could not be
helpful
forestalling challenges
is
in
excluded as a cause of John Holbrook’s can-
expert testimony.”
Id.
cer.
reviewing
It also
assists
court
determin-
ing
jury
given
whether the
has been
experts’
backgrounds
Both
extensive
in the-
appropriate
by
judge
standard
which to
causes,
study
includ-
of mesothelioma and
court, therefore,
opinion. The district
erred
radiation,
their review of the literature
by disallowing cross-examination of Dr.
history
and their review of John Holbrook’s
opinion
Browne to determine whether his
provided
upon
they could
substance
which
degree
certainty.
met this
opinions
required
offer scientific
that met the
reliability.
required
threshold of
As
Dau-
In
another
instance cited
Hol
bert,
procedures
examining
their
the facts brook,
objection
the court overruled an
presented to them and their own research
testimony,
Dr. Browne’s
in which he stated
methodologies were based on the methods of
possible
that radiation is a distinct
cause.
opinion
and did not reveal
science
way
telling
I have no
whether it
to a
is
merely
subjective
on their own
beliefs.
degree
certainty
of medical
the cause.
qualify
“Situations which the failure to
D.
opinion
typical
have resulted
exclusion are
matter,
objects
In a
related
ly
those
which
portions
experts’ testimony,
defense
speculative, using
language
‘possibili
such
”
arguing that in several instances the testimo
Evidence,
ty.’
Id. The Federal Rules of
ny
given
degree
certainty
was not
to the
however,
require
particular phrase
do not
required.
II
Holbrook cites Paoli
regarding
degree
certainty
with which
Corp.,
opinion was
at-,
Daubert,
admissibility.
509 U.S.
113
plaintiff.
the
ment of
at 2798.
statement
that
S.Ct.
Holbrook’s
II,
we reversed a
that
Paoli
It is true
“[rjecords
simply admissible
of deaths are
‘as
judgment on certain claims because
summary
”is,’
simply
ignores our
wrong, and
deci-
plaintiffs
had not testified
the
Metropolitan
in Schulz
Pollard v.
sions
required
certainty.
degree of medical
We
Co.,
(3d Cir.1979).
598
1284
Ins.
F.2d
Life
because,
degree
certainty in
II
that
Paoli
Although in
we did not reach the
Schulz
law,
proof
Pennsylvania
the burden of
under
properly
the
whether
district court
re-
issue
degree
certainty.
required that
indicating
fused to admit
death certificate
Demopou-
Here,
Drs.
the test is different.
etiology
asbestosis when the
testified for the defense that
los and Browne
clearly
in dispute,
cancer was
we
indicated
excluded, as it was a
could not be
analysis
Rule 403
that the court’s
under
was
possible
cause of John
distinct
in order.
787 diagnosis diag- arbitrary irrational, mesothelioma is daeted was neither nor [T]he subjected accordingly, nosis that must be to examina- will be affirmed. my is [I]t
tion and cross-examination.... ruling that Rule that there under IV. prejudice you unfair unfair risk of to be Because we that the find court erred argue able to that 9 other doctors unexa- by excluding testimony, certain canwe affirm diagnosed mined in this mesothelio- Court jury’s liability only verdict on if those ma, only percent which at best has a 90 a— errors were harmless. See Advanced Medi diagnosis chance of as I understand the cal, Inc., Systems, Inc. v. Arden Medical testimony through autopsy being correct. (3d Cir.1992). F.2d 188 “A determination of percent being a 60 chance at if And correct depends harmless error on whether it sample there is a tissue excised highly probable that the error did not con lung opposed point needle examina- judgment.” tribute to the 199. being right tion where the risk of is—the being right only chance of per- Co., In McQueeney Wilmington Trust ... [I]n cent. terms of trustworthiness of Cir.1985), we found diagnosis, it’s not like there was a bone that the district court’s refusal to admit evi- broken, that’s the bone is broken. Here impaired ability dence the defendants’ to dis- you diagnosis have a of mesothelioma credit central element of the something which is that has to be exam- case, against critical liability, was for defense diagnosis, technique ined as to method of potentially the defendants’ best evidence certainty diagnosis. diagnosis, result, and was not cumulative. As we say highly probable could not that it was argued difficulty It that the of the the failure to admit the evidence did not diagnosis weight affects the to be accorded rights, affect defendants’ substantial contents, the documents’ not their admissibil- Hence, we reversed the district court. ity. necessarily This is not so. The difficul- improperly testimony excluded ty diagnosis go more to of the does indeed likely makes it more that the would have admissibility weight than to the decision, reached a different the error is not evidence, but that does not make it irrelevant harmless. light of Rule 403. hurdle, independent addition to the Rule 403 Here, testimony by plaintiffs ex 803(8) 803(6) expressly Rule and Rule con- perts bore on the critical issue of whether template exclusion on untrustworthi- by John Holbrook had mesothelioma caused ness. asbestos, treating physi court, diagnosis may its determina based on cian’s about his The diag tion that mesothelioma is difficult to have been Holbrook’s best evidence on the nose, Likewise, prej determined that the risk of unfair existence of mesothelioma. udice, eliminating by leaving references to mesothelioma Altschuler’s finding not testified to their authors as a cause was crucial to a documents asbestos, radiation, experts, qualified nor relied on out caused John Hol- weighed probative it value. Because of brook’s mesothelioma. This makes diffi accurately say problems diagnosing improbable mesotheli- cult to that it is that admit oma, ting the court determined that the unexa this evidence would not have affected helpful contrary, appears mined references were not to and the outcome. To the potentially jury. say that it would. we cannot could have misled Because harmless, ruling requiring that references to Holbrook is enti court’s these errors were mesothelioma various documents be re- tled to a new trial.4 error, allegations assignments unsupported brook a new trial. The Holbrook makes other merit, argues, analysis, generally without further that the of error are error, without and even if and rulings they require a new trial. Fol- were an abuse of discretion and that the would not Schulz, lowing requires we leave these "multitude of error reversal and a new our course stated, development grant we have we will Hol- issues for further at the next trial. trial.” As *11 ground diagnosis of and as a for a about his mesothelioma asserts Holbrook also report by re- pathology the and judge’s the conduct at reliance on new trial that trial pulmonologist’s testimony urges stricting the elimi- prejudiced her us trial case. of mesothelio- attempts nating to conduct direct- radiation as a cause the to examine her ma, judgment of experts. the in favor her medical Accord- we will reverse examination of Holbrook, a new trial and the cause for “[t]he to actions the defendants remand reassign whole, effectively judge, request a trial. Holbrook’s we taken as communi- judge judge a new on is denied. cated to that the had a low the case to remand the her opinion plaintiffs case and counsel.” Unquestionably, improper con- bias SCIRICA, Judge, concurring in Circuit judge may grounds be for a duct a trial part dissenting part: in party unfairly preju- if a
new trial by a participation join II the Although diced. Active I in Parts and III of however, judge proceedings, opinion in trial is court’s I do not the district believe improper unfair. Carpenter itself nor of Dr. rulings neither on the granting a new require Dr. Altschuler Desjardins Community v. Van BurEn Hos trial. Cir.1992). (1st pital, F.2d 1280 (as The district court’s conduct dis evidentiary
tinguished
rulings)
its
does
I.
not warrant a new trial. The court inter
Carpenter,
specialist
Dr.
internal med-
rupted
repeatedly and
counsel for both sides
icine,
treating physi-
proper
both
was John Holbrook’s
tried to instnict
sides
the
Dr.
ques
permit
lines
cian. The district court did not
procedure to follow certain
may
Although
Carpenter
diagnosed
to state that he
Hol-
tioning.
the court’s demeanor
times,
patholo-
brook with mesothelioma because
gruff at
Holbrook’s counsel
have been
gists Holy
testing
Hospital
rather than
pursuing
the court
Cross
seemed to be
diagnosis.
previously Carpenter actually “made” the
the court had
issues
diag-
(“[Carpenter]
This conduct falls
did
make the
rulings
made
clear.
himself
may
upon report
controlling
He
have relied
squarely
judge’s
role of
nosis.
within
fairly
ruling
diagnosis.”).
cannot
While the district court’s
proceedings,
the court
be
plaintiff
may
rigid
diagnostic
hu
too
a view of
prejudicing
or
reflect
characterized
process,
judge’s
I do not
its limitation of
miliating
The trial
role is
believe
counsel.
Carpenter’s testimony
reversible
possible,
if
constituted
preside
passively
over
Reversal and remand for a new trial
when indicated.
error.
aggressively
justified only
judge’s
is
a trial
errone-
judge’s
vary
exigencies
where
efforts must
Inadequately prepared
overly ous exclusion
evidence is not harmless.
trial.
provides
part:
may
aggressive
require
indeed
Fed.R.Civ.P.
advocates
interpose itself more ac
that the trial court
No error
either the admission or
forcefully
proceedings
tively and even
ground
...
for
exclusion
evidence
That,
convinced,
we are
to ensure fairness.
setting
granting a new trial or for
aside
trial court did here.5
is what the
...
refusal
take such
verdict
unless
appears
inconsistent
action
V.
justice.
with substantial
sum,
dis-
we conclude
by Although the district court excluded testimo-
trict court committed reversible error
ny by
Carpenter, there still
physician’s
was substan-
precluding
treating
at-,
"[judicial
States,-U.S.-,
rulings
Liteky
The crucial issue at trial was III. from whether John Holbrook died mesotheli- reasons, foregoing deny For the I would or as a oma as a result asbestos request for a new trial. exposure. the am- result of radiation Given ple suffered evidence that John Holbrook highly probable it is Carpenter court’s refusal to allow Dr. diagnosis did not contribute to
to state his jury. Any judgment of the error was
harmless. II. UNITED of America STATES Altschuler, pretrial deposition,
At a pul- board certified internal and who was medicine,
monary admitted he had no fa- KETCHAM, Appellant. Basil miliarity the medical literature on the with No. 95-5002. relationship between radiation and mesothe- that ra- He said he was not aware lioma. Appeals, United States Court of linked mesothelio- diation had ever been Third Circuit. Nevertheless, ma. the district did Argued Sept. 1995. testifying preclude Dr. Altschuler from knowledge medical derived from Decided March 1996. deposi- subsequent he read to his literature (“You prior may ask him tion but to trial. respect literature he refers to with
what you say,
radiation and what does it
choose.”). short, although In the court re- qualify
fused to Altschuler as radiation, him to it allowed
what he knew. background of Dr. Altschuler’s view testimony on
the court’s admission of his mesothelioma, I con-
radiation and cannot its discretion
clude the district court abused refusing qualify Dr. Altschuler as an limiting his testimo- on radiation and Moreover,
ny. plaintiff called Francis
Masse, protection director of the radiation
programs Institute of at the Massachusetts Hoel,
Technology, and Dr. David
chairman of
Department
Biometry
Epidemiol-
Furthermore,
Demopoulos,
a board
Dr. Reineke was taken
ords.
1. The
videotape
presented
autopsy
at trial.
pathologist,
that the
certified
testified
"malignant
report
as the
listed
mesothelioma”
rulings,
Despite
evidence
the district court’s
death.
cause of Holbrook's
presented
included unredacted refer-
hospital
rec-
ences to mesothelioma in
medical
Notes
qualified
qualified. Who is “best”
the “best”
physician
practice
weight
his own
bases
upon which reasonable
is a
matter
diagnosis
from numerous
on information
jurors may disagree.
variety,
and of
includ-
sources
considerable
II,
we reversed
In Paoli
relatives,
by patients
ing statements
finding
quali
a witness was not
court’s
nurses,
opinions
reports and
techni-
doctor,
fied
we found that
“while
records,
doctors, hospital
other
cians and
relatively
clinician
less
arguably
poor
rays.
are
X
of them
admissible
Most
witness, qualifie[d]
fully
than
credible
evidence,
only
expenditure
Similarly,
expert.”
F.3d at 753.
in In re
producing
of substantial time in
and exam-
(“Paoli ”),
Litigation
I
Paoli R.R. Yard PCB
authenticating
ining various
witnesses.
(3d Cir.1990), we stated that
Notes
notes
skill, experience, training
“knowledge
or
The Federal Rules of Evidence are meant
education,”
qualify
Fed.R.Evid.
an ex-
to
courts in
sound
instruct
pert as such.
making
them
in
exercise of
discretion
admis-
logic,
Following
this
it is an
Id.
855.
sibility
should
in-
determinations and
not be
testimony
to
sim-
abuse of discretion
exclude
terpreted
exclusionary rules.
be
as
It would
ply
trial
does not deem the
because the
run
to the
inconsistent with and
counter
qualified
proposed expert to be the best
or
policy
admissibility to allow
Rules’ liberal
of
proposed expert does
have
not
because
expert,
solely
litigation
an
outside
hired
specialization
that
the court considers
rely
testify
purposes,
pa-
on and
most
at 856.
appropriate.
report,
testimony by
thology
exclude
treating physician
report
ordered
who
approach re
The court’s mistaken
and
on it for life-and-death decisions
relied
testimony
Carpenter’s
stricted
by
patient’s
Opinions
about the
treatment.
practice a
requirement
that
the witness
physicians who
neither examined nor
have
testify concerning
cer
particular specialty
force,
patient
probative
less
treated
“have
light
our liberal standard
tain matters.
of
matter,
they
proffered
general
as a
then
would have
qualifications of a
governing the
they
witness,
acceptance
had treated or examined him.” Wier ex
and our
of more
(3d
Heckler,
hold that the dis
rel.
v.
734 F.2d
general qualifications, we
Wier
Cir.1984).
For
by finding
Carpen-
example,
that
context
trict court erred
provides:
in
and
the mandate of Rule 102.
the rules
with
Federal Rule Evidence
however,
approach,
would
be
to secure fair-
The district court's
These rules shall
ness in
construed
administration,
unjustifi-
elimination
unjustly
litigation
requiring
increase
costs
liti-
promotion
expense
delay,
able
growth
and
and
gants
experts
hire a
in countless cases to
host of
development of the law of evidence
and
treating physicians,
that
out of fear
their
end that
truth
ascertained
lives,
they
their health and
whom
entrusted
justly
proceedings
and
determined.
grade” when
time
not "make the
it came
would
expert qualifications comports
approach
Our
testify
in court.
admissibility
policy
with
embodied
the liberal
eases,
familiarity
literature,
security disability
we afford
on his
social
opin-
greater weight
treating physician’s
sporadic
to a
rare cases
the literature did not
(3d
Bowen,
major
v.