McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Weaver, Stern & Thomas, P.A.

United States Sugar Corporation v. Henson

26 FLW D62

Pursuant to the case of Frye v. United States 95 F. 1013 (DC Circuit 1923) to be admissible into evidence, an expert's opinion relating to matters involving novel scientific evidence must be based upon scientific methods and principles that are generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. The burden is on the proponent of the evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the general acceptance of the underlying scientific principles and methodology. There is a four step process for applying the Frye standard for admissibility: 1) the trial judge must determine whether such expert testimony will assist in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact and issue; 2) the trial judge must decide whether the expert's testimony is based on a scientific principle or discovery that is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs; 3) the trial judge must determine whether a particular witness is qualified as an expert to present testimony on the subject issue; 4) the judge may then allow the expert to render an opinion on the subject of his or her expertise and then it is up to the fact finder to determine the credibility of the expert's opinion which may be either accepted or rejected. In determining general acceptance, the fact finder is to evaluate both the quality and quantity of the literature and other evidence supporting the principle or technique. Court determined that the Frye standard of proof applies in workers' compensation cases. In order to preserve an objection to evidence pursuant to the Frye decision, the objecting party must do so at the time a deposition is taken and in the pre-trial stipulation. An objection under Section 90.702, Florida Statutes, does not raise or preserve an objection under Frye. The standard for appellate rule review of a Frye issue is de novo. The Frye test is only applicable to novel scientific evidence, i.e., evidence in the "twilight zone" of science which is "between the experimental and demonstrable stages." Once the evidential force of the scientific theory, methodology, or technique has emerged from the "twilight zone", courts may take judicial notice of its uncontroverted validity. Courts rarely however take judicial notice of a scientific theory or scientific technique. Judicial notice was not taken by the court in this instance. Court determined that claimant's experts were able to testify based upon a Frye analysis of their testimony. In addition, the court determined that it is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community that a differential diagnosis can form the basis for establishing causal connection. A differential diagnosis is a term used to describe a process whereby medical doctors experienced in diagnostic techniques provide testimony countering other possible causes of the injury at issue to establish a causal connection. Case certified to Florida Supreme Court based upon a question of great public importance to determine if the Frye standards apply to the admissibility of the expert opinions in workers' compensation matters in Florida. Opinion on Rehearing, 26 FLW D1065, April 20, 2001. Court clarified previous opinion pursuant to Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc filed by appellants. Court determined that while a separate evidentiary hearing is the usual practice if a "Frye objection" is made, the separate hearing is not mandatory. In this case, at no time did appellant request a separate evidentiary hearing.

Cases

Workers' Compensation

United States Sugar Corporation v. Henson