On July 21, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an anticipated decision in Walsh v. BASF Corp, in which it considered the trial court’s role as the “gatekeeper” for expert testimony, tackling again the state’s application of the Frye test—as opposed to the Daubert test most frequently applied in federal courts and a majority of state courts.  Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to specifically endorse the trial court’s “gatekeeper” role, its opinion assures that the trial court’s role in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony still exists under Pennsylvania’s Frye analysis.

Read more from my column in The Legal Intelligencer supplement, Pa. Law Weekly this month by clicking here.