Differentiating Between Junk Science And Admissible Expert Opinion In Pennsylvania

In environmental personal injury cases, proof of causation is key and that causation almost always hinges on expert opinion.  A recent appellate decision in Pennsylvania in Snizavich v. Rohm and Haas Company provides useful clarification about the line between junk science and admissible expert opinion.

In Snizavich, the wife of a deceased worker at a chemical plant alleged that her husband had died because exposure to hazardous chemicals in the workplace had precipitated  his brain cancer.  Faced with a summary judgment motion alleging that there was no basis for asserting that exposure to chemicals had caused the husband's brain cancer, the wife proffered the opinion of  a medical doctor who said that in his opinion to a reasonable certainty there was a causal link between the exposure to workplace chemicals and the husband's brain cancer.  While noting that the opinion was presented by a scientist who used the "magic words" of an expert opinion, the court refused