Damages: Expert Witnesses

In the language of the Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert is one who possesses scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. \u27 When the jury is sorting through evidence and conflicting party claims on disputed issues, such persons are potentially useful sources of information. At the same time, attorneys\u27 widespread use of expert witnesses has troublesome aspects. To the chagrin of some, expert witnesses have come to dominate civil trials, particularly those involving technical issues where large amounts of money are at risk. The Sabia case is just such a case. As would be expected, experts dominate the litigation. This portion of the symposium will discuss the role of experts and their interaction with the attorneys who hire them, as well as the attorneys who prepare to cross-examine them

Yer Outa Here! A Framework for Analyzing the Potential Exclusion of Expert Testimony Under the Federal Rules of Evidence

It does not take long for even a casual observer of criminal and civil trials to make two observations about expert witnesses. The first of these observations comes almost immediately: experts are vitally important to the judicial process. In many trials, the outcome largely depends upon which set of impressively credentialed experts the jurors (and the judge) believe. The second observation generally comes later than the first: a significant amount of shoddy science, phony logic, faulty analysis, sleight of hand, and other assorted junk enters the courtroom dressed up in the emperor\u27s clothes of expert testimony

Genomic risk prediction of coronary artery disease in women with breast cancer: a prospective cohort study.

Funder: Wellcome TrustBackgroundAdvancements in cancer therapeutics have resulted in increases in cancer-related survival; however, there is a growing clinical dilemma. The current balancing of survival benefits and future cardiotoxic harms of oncotherapies has resulted in an increased burden of cardiovascular disease in breast cancer survivors. Risk stratification may help address this clinical dilemma. This study is the first to assess the association between a coronary artery disease-specific polygenic risk score and incident coronary artery events in female breast cancer survivors.MethodsWe utilized the Studies in Epidemiology and Research in Cancer Heredity prospective cohort involving 12,413 women with breast cancer with genotype information and without a baseline history of cardiovascular disease. Cause-specific hazard ratios for association of the polygenic risk score and incident coronary artery disease (CAD) were obtained using left-truncated Cox regression adjusting for age, genotype array, conventional risk factors such as smoking and body mass index, as well as other sociodemographic, lifestyle, and medical variables.ResultsOver a median follow-up of 10.3 years (IQR: 16.8) years, 750 incident fatal or non-fatal coronary artery events were recorded. A 1 standard deviation higher polygenic risk score was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.33 (95% CI 1.20, 1.47) for incident CAD.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence that a coronary artery disease-specific polygenic risk score can risk-stratify breast cancer survivors independently of other established cardiovascular risk factors