Hardyman v. Norfolk Western Ry. Co.

3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Sixth Circuit Weighs In On Differential Diagnosis

    Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.Sean P. WajertMay 1, 2009

    The physician considers all relevant potential causes of the symptoms and then eliminates alternative causes based on a physical examination, clinical tests, and a thorough case history. Hardyman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 243 F.3d 255, 260 (6th Cir.2001). The court was less than precise in its treatment of the slippery slope between causation of symptoms (what disease is causing the symptoms) to causation of disease (what toxic exposure caused the disease that caused the symptoms).Dr.

  2. Court of Appeals Vacates Jury Verdict for Plaintiff in Welding Case

    Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.Sean P. WajertSeptember 13, 2010

    See J. Hollingsworth & E. Lasker, The Case Against Differential Diagnosis: Daubert, Medical Causation Testimony, and the Scientific Method, 37 J. Health L. 85, 98 (2004). A lower threshold for making a causation decision serves well in the clinic but not in the courtroom, said the court. Of course, some courts permit the physician to testify as to etiology using this methodology, e.g., Hardyman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 243 F.3d 255, 260-67 (6th Cir.2001), but even these courts must apply the Daubert principles carefully in considering it. The ability to diagnose medical conditions is not remotely the same as the ability to deduce, in a scientifically reliable manner, the causes of those medical conditions. Gass v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 501 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1019 (W.D.Mich.2007), rev'd on other grounds, 558 F.3d 419 (6th Cir.2009).

  3. An Unusual Benzene/MDS Opinion

    Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLPDavid OliverMay 27, 2010

    That some courts have taken to using differential diagnosis to identify the root cause of say splenomegaly rather than to distinguish histoplasmosis induced splenomegaly from Hodgkin’s disease induced splenomegaly would likely set many physicians’ eyes rolling. Yet, that’s apparently what the 6th Circuit said in Hardyman v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 243 F.3d255 (6th Cir. 2001) and thus the thinking by the Quillen court.The point of doing a differential diagnosis, of course, is to rule out possible causes until just one is left – it’s a process of elimination. But just because every other cause of splenomegaly has been ruled out in the case of a male patient that doesn’t mean that it makes sense to conclude that the cause must be the remaining possibility – a metastatic ovarian cancer.