This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their discussion of the lack of standards for medical expert testimony in tort cases, Drs Kassirer and Cecil¹ omit a number of significant points. First, most tort litigation occurs in state courts, and a number of jurisdictions (including California, Florida, and New York) do not follow the Supreme Court's Daubert rulings. Of course, these states encounter many of the same difficulties in evaluating evidence offered by medical experts, but one should not focus entirely on the federal courts.

Second, the authors' brief discussion of the allegedly lower standards of admissibility at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is simply incorrect. In fact, the agency imposes quite rigorous substantiation requirements in making approval and labeling decisions, generally refusing to consider anecdotal reports.² Although the FDA's adverse event reporting system considers such reports as potential early warning signals³ and it may release preliminary information to medical professionals, the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

Inconsistency in Evidentiary Standards for Medical Testimony: Disorder in the Courts
Jerome P. Kassirer and Joe S. Cecil
JAMA. 2002;288(11):1382-1387.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Thrombolysis (Tissue Plasminogen Activator) in Stroke: A Medicolegal Quagmire
Weintraub
Stroke 2006;37:1917-1922.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Bearing False Witness
Berlin
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2003;180:1515-1521.
FULL TEXT