The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P sustained four injuries in four separate car accidents between August 1995 and January 1998. P filed a negligence action against a series of four defendants (Ds)--the Valyous; the Burkes; PVC Holding Corp., d/b/a/ Avis Rent-a-Car ('Avis'); and Scott David Chilcut (no longer a party). P claimed the accidents caused fibromyalgia. D moved to preclude P from presenting expert testimony that the accidents caused her fibromyalgia. D argued that the testimony not meet the Frye standard because the premise that trauma can cause fibromyalgia had not been generally accepted in the scientific community. After a hearing, the court granted the motion. P then tried to introduce evidence that the accidents caused 'myofascial pain syndrome' (MPS). D again challenged the evidence under Frye, and the trial court precluded evidence of a causal link between trauma and MPS. The trial court entered summary judgment. P could not prove her case without some kind of expert testimony. P appealed. P argues that the evidence is 'pure opinion testimony' not subject to Frye; and only the basis for an expert's opinions is subject to Frye, not the opinions and deductions drawn from those principles. The Appeals Court rejected these arguments and affirmed. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.