1. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.1923).
2. Many states have evidence rules patterned after the Federal Rules of Evidence, and are accordingly guided by the Daubertanalysis as well. See, e.g., State v. Alberico, 861 P.2d 192, 203-04 (N.M. 1993); Cecil v. Commonwealth, 888 S.W.2d 669, 674-75 (Ky. 1994); State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116, 1121, 1123 (La. 1993); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 641 N.E.2d 1342, 1348-49 (Mass. 1994); State v. Brooks, 643 A.2d 226, 229 (Vt. 1993); Mayhorn v. Logan Med. Found., 454 S.E.2d 87, 90-93 (W.Va. 1994); Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Foote, 14 S.W.3d 512 (Ark. 2000); State v. Porter, 698 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1997); M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513, 522 (Del. 1999); State Department of Transp. v. Hoffman, 721 N.E.2d 356, 359 (Ind. App. 1999); Leaf v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 590 N.W.2d 525, 532 (Iowa 1999); People v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68, 77 (Colo. 2001).
3. Although the leading Daubert cases involve products liability and toxic torts, courts have consistently applied the Daubert analysis in medical malpractice cases, particularly where the expert opinion at issue incorporates scientific fact, as opposed to a standard of care. See, e.g., Sullivan v. U.S. Department of Navy, 365 F.3d 827, 833 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying Daubert analysis to expert testimony offered by the plaintiff); Berk v. St. Vincent's Hosp. & Med. Ctr, 380 F.Supp.2d 334, 353 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (holding that there was “simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered” by the plaintiff's expert to support the conclusion that the defendant committed medical malpractice); Palandjian v. Foster, 842 N.E.2d 916, 923 (Mass. 2006) (“[W]hen the proponent of expert testimony incorporates scientific fact into a statement concerning the standard of care, that science may be the subject of a [Daubert] inquiry. Because expert opinion about increased risk, like diagnosis and causation, involves the application of science to patient care, [Daubert] would be applied to that portion of an expert's testimony, requiring the proponent of such evidence, if challenged, to demonstrate its relevance and reliability.”).
4. The Federal Rules of Evidence govern the admission of evidence in both civil and criminal trials.
5. Valentine v. Conrad, 850 N.E.2d 683, 686 (Ohio 2006) (applying the Daubert standard and affirming the exclusion of testimony by the plaintiff's expert witnesses, who had concluded that the decedent's exposure to chemicals in his workplace caused his glioblastoma multiforme, because there was no evidence that any of the chemicals in the workplace were known to cause that condition).