scientific inquiry in Ohio

2024“Except as to questions of cause and effect which are so apparent as to be matters of common knowledge, the issue of causal connection between an injury and a specific subsequent physical disability involves a scientific inquiry and must be established by the opinion of medical witnesses competent to express such opinion.” Darnell v. Eastman, 23 Ohio St.2d 13 (1970), syllabus. {¶ 22} “Soft-tissue injuries like neck and back strains and sprains require expert testimony to establish a causal connection, because they are injuries that are ‘internal and elusive, and are not sufficiently observable

2020When, however, “the issue of causal connection between an injury and a specific subsequent physical disability involves a scientific inquiry,” it “must be established by the opinion of medical witnesses competent to express such opinion.” Id.

2020The Frye court determined that the party offering the testimony must establish that the scientific principle involved has “gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Id. at 1014 ; see also State v. Springer, 8th Dist.

1992A determination must be made as to when “a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages * * Id. at 1014 .

2018No. C-070609, 2008-Ohio-1433 , 2008 WL 821801 , ¶ 12 ("It is the scientific principle underlying a device's reliability-and not the reliability of a specific model-that renders judicial notice proper"); State v. Yaun , 3d Dist.

2011In addition, our survey of the reported municipal court case law in this district has not revealed a decision that has considered the scientific reliability of this particular device. {¶ 24} We are aware that other courts have concluded that expert testimony regarding the reliability of various models of laser and radar devices is irrelevant for purposes of judicial notice because “[i]t is the scientific principle underlying a device’s reliability — and not the reliability of a specific model — that renders judicial notice proper.” State v. Wiest, Hamilton App. No. C-070609, 2008-Ohio-1433 , 2

1954“In the case of Drakulich v. Industrial Commission, 137 Ohio St., 82 , 27 N. E. (2d), 932, it was announced that the issue of causal connection between an accidental injury and subsequent death from disease, involves a scientific inquiry and must be determined by the testimony of competent medical witnesses.

1944We examine the doctor's testimony under the rules laid down in Drakulich v. Industrial Commission, *Page 391 137 Ohio St. 82 , 27 N.E.2d 932 , in the second and third paragraphs of the syllabus, which are to the effect that causal connection between an injury to a person and his subsequent death involves a scientific inquiry, such causal connection must be established by the testimony of medical witnesses competent to testify on this subject, and that testimony that a person's death from cancer of the liver could have resulted from previous injury to his back is insufficient to prove causal co

2024No. 24618, 2012-Ohio-209, ¶ 60 , quoting, Wright v. Columbus, 10th Dist.

2018Montgomery No. 24618, 2012-Ohio-209 , 2012 WL 175418 , ¶ 60, citing Wright v. Columbus , 10th Dist.

1992By urging us to adopt the Frye test for the admissibility of DNA evidence, Pierce is asking us to reject the relevancy standard for the admission of scientific evidence recognized by this court in State v. Williams (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 53 , 4 OBR 144, 446 N.E.2d 444 , syllabus.

1992By urging us to adopt the Frye test for the admissibility of DNA evidence, Pierce is asking us to reject the relevancy standard for the admission of scientific evidence recognized by this court in State v. Williams (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 53 , 4 OBR 144, 446 N.E.2d 444 , syllabus.

2020Under the Ohio Rules of Evidence, “the inquiry as to reliability is appropriately directed, not to the correctness or credibility of the conclusions reached by the expert witness, but to the reliability of the principles and methods used to reach those conclusions.” 1994 Staff Note, Evid.R. 702. {¶ 33} In Miller, 80 Ohio St.3d at 611 , 687 N.E.2d 735 , this court adopted from Daubert four factors to be considered by a court in evaluating the reliability of scientific evidence: (1) whether the theory or technique has been tested, (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review, (3) whether the

2020Under the Ohio Rules of Evidence, “the inquiry as to reliability is appropriately directed, not to the correctness or credibility of the conclusions reached by the expert witness, but to the reliability of the principles and methods used to reach those conclusions.” 1994 Staff Note, Evid.R. 702. {¶ 33} In Miller, 80 Ohio St.3d at 611 , 687 N.E.2d 735 , this court adopted from Daubert four factors to be considered by a court in evaluating the reliability of scientific evidence: (1) whether the theory or technique has been tested, (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review, (3) whether the

2019In his appellate brief, appellant acknowledges the holdings in Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1 , 116 S.Ct. 7 , 133 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995), and State v. Davis, 62 Ohio St.3d 326 , 581 N.E.2d 1362 (1991).

2019In his appellate brief, appellant acknowledges the holdings in Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1 , 116 S.Ct. 7 , 133 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995), and State v. Davis, 62 Ohio St.3d 326 , 581 N.E.2d 1362 (1991).

2019In his appellate brief, appellant acknowledges the holdings in Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1 , 116 S.Ct. 7 , 133 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995), and State v. Davis, 62 Ohio St.3d 326 , 581 N.E.2d 1362 (1991).

2019In his appellate brief, appellant acknowledges the holdings in Wood v. Bartholomew, 516 U.S. 1 , 116 S.Ct. 7 , 133 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995), and State v. Davis, 62 Ohio St.3d 326 , 581 N.E.2d 1362 (1991).

2018As courts have recognized, "[t]he theory underlying the LTI 20-20 would be familiar to any student of high school physics." * * * [L]aser speed devices operate on the same principle as military radar, which determines distance and changes in distance over time (i.e., speed) by transmitting pulses of microwaves and "measur[ing] the time it takes for a pulse to reach the target and for its echo to return." Mann , quoting Goldstein , 339 Md. at 571 -572 , 664 A.2d 375 , citing 1 McCormick on Evidence, Section 204, at 880 n.17 (J.

2018As courts have recognized, "[t]he theory underlying the LTI 20-20 would be familiar to any student of high school physics." * * * [L]aser speed devices operate on the same principle as military radar, which determines distance and changes in distance over time (i.e., speed) by transmitting pulses of microwaves and "measur[ing] the time it takes for a pulse to reach the target and for its echo to return." Mann , quoting Goldstein , 339 Md. at 571 -572 , 664 A.2d 375 , citing 1 McCormick on Evidence, Section 204, at 880 n.17 (J.

2018Adams , 103 Ohio St.3d 508 , 2004-Ohio-5845 , 817 N.E.2d 29 , at ¶ 80. {¶16} For unknown reasons, speed measuring devices are treated as the exception to this general rule that the scientific principle, as opposed to the specific device, is the focus when addressing admissibility concerns.

2018Id. {¶23} The principle underlying Ferell should be applied to laser-based speed measuring devices that rely on the same scientific principle underlying the radar-based technology.

2018Thus the state was required to present "expert testimony with respect to construction of the device and its method of operation with respect to its ability to differentiate the speed of a vehicle approaching the moving patrol car from the opposite direction from the combined speed at which the two vehicles are moving toward each other." See, e.g., State v. Wilcox , 40 Ohio App.2d 380 , 319 N.E.2d 615 (10th Dist.1974), syllabus. 1 {¶ 14} In addressing the state's burden, the Ferell Court was concerned with the scientific principle underlying the device, not the manufacturer or model of the devi

2018Thus the state was required to present "expert testimony with respect to construction of the device and its method of operation with respect to its ability to differentiate the speed of a vehicle approaching the moving patrol car from the opposite direction from the combined speed at which the two vehicles are moving toward each other." See, e.g., State v. Wilcox , 40 Ohio App.2d 380 , 319 N.E.2d 615 (10th Dist.1974), syllabus. 1 {¶ 14} In addressing the state's burden, the Ferell Court was concerned with the scientific principle underlying the device, not the manufacturer or model of the devi

2017Bd. , 66 Ohio St.3d 619 , 621, 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993). {¶ 21} "The Ohio Supreme Court has held that, '[e]xcept as to questions of cause and effect which are so apparent as to be matters of common knowledge, the issue of causal connection between an injury and a specific subsequent physical disability involves a scientific inquiry and must be established by the opinion of medical witnesses competent to express such opinion.' " Scott v. Hong , 9th Dist.

2017Bd. , 66 Ohio St.3d 619 , 621, 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993). {¶ 21} "The Ohio Supreme Court has held that, '[e]xcept as to questions of cause and effect which are so apparent as to be matters of common knowledge, the issue of causal connection between an injury and a specific subsequent physical disability involves a scientific inquiry and must be established by the opinion of medical witnesses competent to express such opinion.' " Scott v. Hong , 9th Dist.

2017Smith testified in this case that you “can’t judge a book by its cover.” He said that individuals with mild mental retardation “lose their sense of label” and that they learn behaviors to mask or compensate for their deficiencies, calling it the “cloak of confidence.” As the Ohio Supreme Court noted, “they may look relatively normal in some areas and have certain significant limitations in other areas.” State v. White, 118 Ohio St.3d 12 , 2008-Ohio-1623 , 885 N.E.2d 905, ¶ 65 .

2017Smith testified in this case that you “can’t judge a book by its cover.” He said that individuals with mild mental retardation “lose their sense of label” and that they learn behaviors to mask or compensate for their deficiencies, calling it the “cloak of confidence.” As the Ohio Supreme Court noted, “they may look relatively normal in some areas and have certain significant limitations in other areas.” State v. White, 118 Ohio St.3d 12 , 2008-Ohio-1623 , 885 N.E.2d 905, ¶ 65 .

2017“When expert medical testimony is required in a case to establish a causal connection between the industrial injury and a subsequent physical condition, the proof must establish a probability and not a mere possibility of such causal connection.” Randall v. Mihm, 84 Ohio App.3d 402, 406 , 616 N.E.2d 1171 (2d Dist.1992).

2017“When expert medical testimony is required in a case to establish a causal connection between the industrial injury and a subsequent physical condition, the proof must establish a probability and not a mere possibility of such causal connection.” Randall v. Mihm, 84 Ohio App.3d 402, 406 , 616 N.E.2d 1171 (2d Dist.1992).

2017Wayne No., 2009-Ohio-780 , 2009 WL 427442 , ¶ 13, quoting Darnell v. Eastman , 23 Ohio St.2d 13 , 17, 261 N.E.2d 114 (1970). {¶ 22} In this case, the Bolens sought to admit certain medical records into evidence at the close of their case.

2016WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) REQUIRES REVERSAL -48- {¶ 81} Hartman argues that the admission of scientific evidence through a witness who did not conduct the scientific test is structural error.

2016Mercer No. 10-2006-001, 2006-Ohio-6339, ¶ 61 ; see generally Terry v. Caputo, 115 Ohio St.3d 351 , 2007-Ohio-5023 , 875 N.E.2d 72, ¶ 16 (2007) (“Establishing general causation and specific causation in cases involving exposure to mold or other toxic substances involves a scientific inquiry, and thus causation must be established by the testimony of a medical expert.”).