[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

The Daubert Standard was established “to determine the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial” under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 582, 587 (1993). In Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, the Supreme Court held that the Daubert Standard “applies to all expert testimony,” and not only scientific expert testimony…

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The complete explanation for this Standard;
• The standard of review on appeal; and
• The citations to the most court cases citing and/or explaining the Standard.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

The Daubert Standard was established “to determine the standard for admitting expert scientific testimony in a federal trial” under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 582, 587 (1993). In Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, the Supreme Court held that the Daubert Standard “applies to all expert testimony,” and not only scientific expert testimony. 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999). In In re Amendments to Florida Evidence Code, the Florida Supreme Court extended the Daubert Standard to Florida state courts, rejecting the older Frye Standard. 278 So.3d 551 (Mem), 552 (Fla. 2019). Under the Daubert Standard, “a trial judge has a gatekeeping role to ‘ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.’” Kemp v. State, 280 So. 3d 81, 88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589). “The focus of the Daubert analysis is ‘on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.’” Porras v. United States, 2022 WL 2073006, *2 (M.D. Fla. June 9, 2022) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595).

The Daubert Standard was intended to replace the older and stricter Frye Standard, giving Judge’s wider control over what expert testimony was permitted in court. Under the current Daubert Standard, “Florida courts allow expert testimony if it will help the factfinder understand evidence or determine a fact in issue, but only if: ‘(1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) [t]he testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) [t]he witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.’” May v. State, 326 So.3d 188, 192 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 26, 2021) (quoting § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (2018) (codifying Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993))). “The relevance inquiry goes to whether the testimony will ‘assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.’” Vitiello v. State, 281 So.3d 554, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591).

“The Daubert Court set forth a list of five factors a lower court may consider to determine whether the expert’s testimony is reliable: (1) whether the ‘theory or technique … can be (and has been) tested;’ (2) whether the theory or technique ‘has been subjected to peer review and publication;’ (3) the ‘known or potential rate of error’ of the theory or technique; (4) ‘the existence and maintenance of standards controlling [the theory’s or technique’s] operation;’ and (5) whether the theory or technique has ‘attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.’” Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Spearman, 320 So.3d 276, 290-91 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)(quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-94).

The standard of review on appeal for a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony under the Daubert standard is abuse of discretion. Huggins v. Siegel, 336 So. 3d 58, 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021); Peng v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 337 So. 3d 488, 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nob Hill Family Chiropractic, 328 So. 3d 1, 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021).

---

Supreme Court: In re Amendments to Florida Evidence Code, 278 So.3d 551 (Mem), 552 (Fla. 2019) (rejecting previous Frye Standard in favor of Daubert Standard);

First District: May v. State, 326 So.3d 188, 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (Upholding grant of motion); Maines v. Fox, 190 So.3d 1135, 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (Holding grant of motion was an abuse of discretion).

Second District: R.C. v. State, 192 So.3d 606, 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (Denying motion);

Third District: Horta v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 404 So. 3d 596, at 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025); Peng v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 1099518, *3-4 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 13, 2022) (reversing grant of the motion); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Spearman, 320 So.3d 276, 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (upholding grant of motion).

Fourth District: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nob Hill Family Chiropractic, 328 So.3d 1, 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (reversing order granting motion); Archer v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co., 313 So.3d 645, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (Rejecting expert affidavit).

Fifth District: Vitiello v. State, 281 So.3d 554, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (Rejecting motion);

---

2 Issues And Considerations

(1) “[T]he Daubert standard does not prohibit . . . expert opinion testimony based on experience.” United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Rehab. & Orthopedic Servs., LLC, 324 So.3d 1006, 1010 (Fla. 3d DCA July 21, 2021).

(2) An expert’s pure opinion testimony is not admissible in court. Cristin v. Everglades Corr. Inst., 310 So.3d 951, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).

(3) “[V]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993). “These tools remain the ‘appropriate safeguards,’ and not ‘wholesale exclusion,’ where the basis for expert testimony meets the standards set forth by the rules of evidence.” Vitiello v. State, 281 So.3d 554, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596).

(4) “[R]ejection of expert testimony under Daubert ‘is the exception rather than the rule.’” Vitiello v. State, 281 So.3d 554, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note to 2000 amendment).

(5) Trial courts are “require[ed] ‘for proper appellate review purposes’ of a decision to exclude expert testimony under Daubert, that the trial court create a sufficient record and make specific findings of fact on the record ‘whether the testimony was scientifically reliable and factually relevant.’” Peng v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Co., 337 So.3d 488, 492 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2022) (reversing lower court’s order to exclude an expert witness because they did not provide sufficient reasoning). State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nob. Hill Family Chiropractic, 328 So.3d 1, 4, 6 (Fla. 4th 2021).

(6) “[T]rial courts enjoy broad discretion as evidentiary gatekeepers. And we will not overturn a trial court’s ruling absent an abuse of discretion. This means we must affirm unless no reasonable person would adopt the trial court’s view.” May v. State, 326 So.3d 188, 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (citing Booker v. Sumter Cnty. Sheriff’s Off./N. Am. Risk Servs., 166 So. 3d 189, 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Salazar v. State, 991 So. 2d 364, 372 (Fla. 2008)).

(7) “[N]o weight may be accorded an expert opinion which is totally conclusory in nature and is unsupported by any discernible, factually-based chain of underlying reasoning.” Parc Royale E. Dev., Inc. v. U.S. Project Mgmt., Inc., 38 So. 3d 865, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

(8) “As a gatekeeper, the trial judge must make ‘a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology … properly can be applied to the facts in issue.’” Walker v. State, 308 So.3d 193, 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93 (1993).

(9) “A trial court is similarly vested with discretion ‘in determining how to perform its gatekeeper function when addressing the admissibility of expert opinion testimony’ under the Daubert standard.” Torrez v. State, 294 So.3d 390, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting Booker v. Sumter Cty. Sheriff’s Office/N. Am. Risk Servs., 166 So. 3d 189, 192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)). “However, ‘that discretion is limited by the rules of evidence.’” Torrez v. State, 294 So.3d 390, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (quoting Michael v. State, 884 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).

(10) The Daubert Standard requires “the trial court to make a ‘preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.’” Vitiello v. State, 281 So.3d 554, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592–93 (1993)).

(11) “Factors that tend to inform whether a particular methodology is reliable ‘include whether the expert’s theory or technique: (1) can be or has been tested; (2) has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) has a known or potential rate of error or standards controlling its operation; and (4) is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.’ This list of factors, however, is not exhaustive.” Vitiello v. State, 281 So.3d 554, 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (quoting Pipitone v. Biomatrix, 288 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2002)).

(12) “[A]n expert’s opinion must be based upon “knowledge,” not merely “subjective belief or unsupported speculation.” Kemp v. State, 280 So.3d 81, 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993)).

[/MM_Access_Decision]