Endorsed by NITA as "the best option for litigators," LexisNexis Total Litigator helps you build your best litigation strategy across the life of any case.

In Leathers v. Pfizer, Inc., 233 F.R.D. 687 (N.D. Ga. 2006), the plaintiff alleged that the defendant drug manufacturer’s product, a statin drug used to control high cholesterol, caused permanent muscle pain and weakness.  The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia held that the plaintiff’s proffered expert was not excused from a Daubert analysis simply because he was the plaintiff’s treating physician.

In addition, the expert was challenged under the first prong of the Daubert analysis as being insufficiently qualified.  The court stated that it was “mindful of the liberal approach taken in qualifying a witness as an expert” and let the issue of the expert’s qualifications go to his credibility rather than admissibility.

Although he qualified as an expert, the court held that the reliability of the expert’s opinions on both general and specific causation did not satisfy Daubert and granted the defendant’s motion to strike.