Judge Sandra Mazer Moss ruled in the Philadelphia hormone therapy cases that plaintiffs’ expert witness testimony was admissible, contrary to defendants’ assertions that the testimony was novel, and that the conclusions used by the experts relied on differential diagnosis. The Judge held that “I am not convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that differential diagnosis . . . is novel science.” FYI, differential diagnosis, a process of elimination, is a fundamental means of diagnosis taught by all medical schools. Therefore, the evidence will be admissible, and defendants may attack it in front of a jury.
The ruling applies to the majority of Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas hormone therapy cases. One new hormone therapy trial started yesterday, and another will begin next Monday.