Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp.

Background

Albert Roy Christophersen died of a rare cancer in 1986. His widow and son sued, saying fumes from the nickel/cadmium battery factory where he worked caused his illness. They relied on opinions from an internist and a toxicologist. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the federal trial court found the doctor’s affidavit was not based on the usual evidence that cancer researchers rely on and ruled for the defendants.

Reasoning

The central question was what rule courts should use to decide if expert testimony is admissible. The Fifth Circuit sat en banc and was divided. Eight judges affirmed the trial court using the nearly century-old Frye rule that asks whether a methodology is generally accepted. Five judges rejected Frye and followed newer federal rules. Other appeals courts are also split between Frye and the federal rules approach. The Supreme Court declined to take the case, so it did not resolve the disagreement.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused review, lower courts must keep using different tests depending on the circuit. That continues uncertainty for workers, doctors, and lawyers about what sort of scientific proof will be allowed in future toxic-exposure and other cases. This decision is not a final ruling on the merits and leaves the legal standard unsettled.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissented from the denial and said the Court should grant review to resolve the important and recurring split among the appeals courts.