01-4061 Chapman v. Maytag Corp.

Listen to this article

“It is undisputed that Petry did not conduct any scientific tests or experiments in order to arrive at his conclusions. Petry never produced any studies, tests or experiments to justify or verify his conclusions, despite his representations to the court that such test results would be forthcoming. In our opinion, the absence of any testing indicates that Petry’s proffered opinions cannot fairly be characterized as scientific knowledge. Personal observation is not a substitute for scientific methodology and is insufficient to satisfy Daubert’s most significant guidepost. … Petry’s opinions amount to nothing more than unverified statements unsupported by scientific methodology. Accordingly, the district court erred when it did not exclude Petry’s testimony.

“Further, Petry’s testimony failed to satisfy any of the other Daubert guideposts for reliability. Petry presented no proof that his theory is generally accepted in the scientific community. Cummins, 93 F.3d at 369 (noting that Daubert suggests the review of experimental, statistical, or other scientific data generated by others in the field). Instead, his theory is novel and unsupported by any article, text, study, scientific literature or scientific data produced by others in his field. Id. (excluding an expert’s scientific opinion where expert failed to ‘read any studies, surveys or analyses’ in support of his theory). Additionally, by his own admission, Petry has not published any writings or studies concerning his ‘resistive short’ theory. Unsubstantiated testimony, such as this, does not ensure that ‘the experts’s opinion has a reliable basis in knowledge and experience of his discipline.'”

Reversed and remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Foster, Mag. J., Bauer, J.