Canney v. Kiely, like many of our cases, involved a dispute over scientific testimony and the requirements established by the U. S. Supreme Court under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

One month after our client began taking the methadone her doctor prescribed for chronic, debilitating back pain, she showed signs of addiction.  Yet the doctor  increased the dosage and allowed her to check in periodically by telephone, rather than face-to-face.   He also routinely ordered three-month prescriptions, in violation of Federal and State law.

As a result, our client, who had no previous history of drug use, became addicted to methadone, and had to undergo treatment to wean herself off the drug.

The doctor filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that because our expert based his opinions upon his experience gleaned from treating patients, his opinions amounted to no more than ipse dixit (viz., a bare assertion, resting solely on his authority), and failed to meet the requirements of Daubert.

The trial court rejected the doctor's argument, holding that our expert's experience provided a solid, well-recognized basis for expert opinion under Daubert.

Six months later, the defendant settled the case with our client, in the courtroom, moments before opening statements were scheduled to begin.

You can read the court's decision on scientific testimony by clicking here.