Under General Electric v. Joiner, a court may exclude testimony where too great an analytical gap exists between the data and the opinion offered. The methodology may be sound while the conclusion does not follow from it.
The 2023 amendment reinforced the requirement of reliable application.
Alternative Names:
Analytical Gap Objection, Joiner Gap
Why it Matters?
This is the most productive Daubert challenge in toxic tort and causation cases, because plaintiff experts frequently rely on studies that do not support the specific conclusion offered. Studies at higher doses, different exposure routes, different populations, or different outcomes each create a gap. Identifying precisely what each cited study establishes and where the leap occurs is the analytical work the motion requires.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What creates an analytical gap?
Why is this challenge productive?
