In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court announced a new standard for the admissibility of expert testimony at trial. This decision could have a significant effect on litigation where both sides will hotly contest whether exposure to a particular agent actually caused the plaintiffs injury. Such is the case with exposure to low frequency Electromagnetic Fields (EMF). Scientists do not agree whether exposure to EMF causes injury to humans, but plaintiffs are claiming they were injured by EMF and are seeking compensation. In this article, the nature, sources, and studies of EMF health effects are described and the possible effects of the Daubert decision on this controversy are explored.
Recommended CitationRoland A. Giroux, Daubert v. Merrell Dow: Is This Just What the EMF Doctor Ordered?, 12 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 393 (1994)
Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol12/iss1/13