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

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

Ps both took the drug Parlodel to suppress lactation after childbirth. Both women suffered hemorrhagic strokes. P sued D alleging that Parlodel caused their hemorrhagic strokes. After discovery, D moved to exclude the opinions and testimony of Ps' experts on causation. The district court held a Daubert hearing to determine whether the evidence was admissible. The court drew a careful distinction between clinical process, in which conclusions must be extrapolated from incomplete data, and the scientific method, in which conclusions must be drawn from an accepted process, and concluded that the Ps' experts were relying on the former. The district court excluded the evidence and granted summary judgment to D. P appealed.

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

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