Miller v. Elisea

"[T]he inquiry into the admissibility of evidence of medical causation focuses on the differential diagnosis and whether the particular use of the differential diagnosis to determine causation has met the general test of scientific validity." Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 331 Or 285, 307, 14 P3d 596 (2000). 

Plaintiffs appealed a judgment dismissing their personal injury action against Defendant. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred by excluding Plaintiffs' expert’s testimony that would speak to the causation between the physical trauma of the car accident and the fibromyalgia that resulted in Plaintiff's wife. In response, Defendant asserted that the trial court did not err because there was no scientific medical consensus for the causal relationship between the trauma and the onset of the fibromyalgia. "[T]he inquiry into the admissibility of evidence of medical causation focuses on the differential diagnosis and whether the particular use of the differential diagnosis to determine causation has met the general test of scientific validity." Jennings v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 331 Or 285, 307, 14 P3d 596 (2000). The Court held that the general acceptance of a theory of causation in the medical community is relevant, but its absence is not disqualifying. Therefore, because Plaintiffs' expert relied on scientifically valid principles, even if contradictory to the Defendant's expert opinion, the trial court erred in excluding the expert's testimony. Reversed and Remanded.