This article specifically examines the reliability standard imposed under Rule 702 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence and its application to medical expert testimony in Ohio. Section II reviews Daubert, its progeny, and Ohio law. This analysis reveals tension between Ohio's flexible relevance/reliability standard and the more exacting demands of Daubert. Section III examines the scientific basis of clinical diagnosis and treatment of illness and disease. This section argues that judges should take judicial notice of the conventional methodology underlying the clinical practice of medicine, and thus the preliminary question of reliability of medical expert testimony should rarely require a Daubert hearing. Section IV discusses the reliability of medical and scientific literature and the criteria establishing its use by experts and attorneys in the courtroom.

Included in

Evidence Commons