Diminishing the Requirement for Causation Experts

In Thompson v. Laspisa, the Illinois Appellate Court held that expert testimony is not automatically required to establish proximate cause in medical or dental negligence cases. While expert evidence may be necessary for complex causation issues, the court ruled that a jury can assess obvious damages—such as pain and suffering—without specialized medical testimony. The decision partially reversed summary judgment, clarifying that the need for expert testimony depends on whether the issue is beyond the understanding of an average juror.

Change to Law Governing the Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony

As of August 28, 2017, Missouri has adopted the Daubert standard for the admissibility of expert witness testimony, marking a significant shift in legal proceedings. This change, driven by House Bill 153, requires courts to rigorously evaluate the reliability of expert methodologies before allowing testimony at trial. Unlike the previous broad standard, the new criteria demand a thorough examination of the expert’s principles and their application to the case’s specific facts. Discover how this heightened scrutiny impacts the legal landscape and what it means for future cases in Missouri.