holding that Pennsylvania law precludes an expert from testifying based on guess or conjecture, and thus that the district court had properly excluded a doctor's opinion that an individual had lapsed into a diabetic coma before an accident when the doctor had failed to rule out the alternative possibility that the brain injury suffered during the accident had caused the coma
How later courts described this case
- holding that Pennsylvania law precludes an expert from testifying based on guess or conjecture, and thus that the district court had properly excluded a doctor's opinion that an individual had lapsed into a diabetic coma before an accident when the doctor had failed to rule out the alternative possibility that the brain injury suffered during the accident had caused the coma
- striking testimony of orthopedic surgeon that in his opinion defendant’s decedent had lapsed into diabetic coma, which was cause of automobile-truck collision, held not beyond trial court’s discretion where witness admitted he had never read any text on diabetes or diabetic comas, did not know who was leading authority on diabetes or which was leading treatise, and revealed no other special knowledge in field of diabetes
- holding an orthopedic doctor lacked expertise to testify that a diabetic coma caused an accident when he admittedly had no special knowledge of diabetes
- Pennsylvania law precludes an expert *761 from testifying based on guess or conjecture, thus, the district court properly excluded a doctor’s opinion that an individual lapsed into a diabetic coma before an accident when the doctor failed to rule out the alternative possibility that the brain injury suffered during the accident caused the coma
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
On Petition for Rehearing
Before KALODNER, Chief Judge, and McLaughlin, staley, hastie, GANEY, SMITH and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for rehearing in this case has been considered and presents no new argument. A majority of the circuit judges in regular active service not having voted for rehearing in banc, the petition for rehearing will be denied.
Judge McLAUGHLIN and Judge GANEY desire that their dissents from the denial of rehearing be noted.