Synopsis of Valentine v. Conrad
2006-Ohio-3561

Full text of the Valentine decision

On July 26, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court decided Valentine v. Conrad, affirming the lower courts’ stringent requirements for the admissibility of expert testimony. In 2005, the Ohio Manufacturers' Association joined forces with other organizations to file an amicus curiae brief in the Ohio Supreme Court, and urged the Court to affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

The Court held that expert testimony should be admitted as evidence only when the experts’ opinions are reliable, i.e., soundly based on established scientific principles and methods. The Court clarified that the trial court’s role is to determine whether an expert’s testimony is reliable enough to be admitted.

The plaintiff in Valentine argued that the jury, not the trial court, should be allowed to determine the reliability of expert testimony. Plaintiff’s experts asserted that decedent’s brain cancer was caused from his workplace exposure to various chemicals at a PPG plant where he had worked for almost thirty years. None of plaintiff’s experts could cite a study or other scientific proof that directly addressed the circumstances in question. Instead, the experts crafted their opinions by extrapolating data from other studies that were, at best, tenuously related to decedent’s situation. Both the trial and appellate courts held, and the Supreme Court affirmed, that such expert testimony is unreliable and inadmissible.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Ohio courts are the “gatekeepers” with regard to expert testimony and should only admit reliable expert testimony into evidence. The trial court’s role is to determine whether expert testimony is reliable, and the jury’s role is to weigh only that evidence the trial court deems reliable. Ohio courts “may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered” to deem the testimony “reliable”.

The Supreme Court’s Valentine decision adopts the reasoning advocated by the Ohio Manufacturers' Association in its amicus brief. The decision deters Ohio courts from admitting expert testimony that may be improperly extrapolated from unreliable sources. The Valentine decision ensures that Ohio courts will not admit “scientific guesswork” as evidence. Further, the Court’s stringent approach in Valentine will likely decrease the incentive for frivolous lawsuits against Ohio’s manufacturers and employers.

For more information regarding this case, contact Anne Marie Sferra chair of the Bricker & Eckler appellate group.