下沙论坛

 找回密码
 注册论坛(EC通行证)

用新浪微博连接

一步搞定

QQ登录

QQ登录

下沙大学生网QQ群8(千人群)
群号:6490324 ,验证:下沙大学生网。
用手机发布本地信息严禁群发,各种宣传贴请发表在下沙信息版块有问必答,欢迎提问 提升会员等级,助你宣传
新会员必读 大学生的论坛下沙新生必读下沙币获得方法及使用
楼主: 天大天才
打印 上一主题 下一主题

各位已毕业的学生,请说说自己现在的工作和专业有关吗?

[复制链接]

该用户从未签到

21
发表于 2006-4-22 23:51:00 | 只看该作者
完全无关
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

该用户从未签到

22
发表于 2006-4-23 14:43:00 | 只看该作者
学的是电子,做的是软件开发
! \: ^! _+ p6 a* _目前工作需要的知识,都是另外学的,学校里学的一点都没用上7 d! a; `& Z2 j& H3 k7 x! U
不过我喜欢软件开发,一个能展现自我,充分发挥自己价值的职业
- ^4 r. X7 a  q3 J  s$ D我一定要在2年内当上系统分析师或者项目主管以上的职位
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

  • TA的每日心情
    奋斗
    2017-12-21 11:21
  • 签到天数: 2 天

    [LV.1]初来乍到

    23
    发表于 2006-4-24 18:30:00 | 只看该作者
    基本无关·~但还是要装的很懂的样子~~呵呵,胡弄一下
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    24
    发表于 2006-4-24 22:10:00 | 只看该作者
    学计算机~~现在软件开发
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    25
    发表于 2006-4-26 20:18:00 | 只看该作者
    555555555555前途渺茫
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    26
    发表于 2006-4-27 18:40:00 | 只看该作者
    学机械电子,现在做品质管理,一半对一半吧
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    27
    发表于 2006-4-28 15:38:00 | 只看该作者
    我国际贸易的   但是做的是通讯   晕死   自己都接受不了
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    28
    发表于 2006-4-28 18:37:00 | 只看该作者
    学会计,做财会..嘿嘿
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    29
    发表于 2006-4-28 22:31:00 | 只看该作者
    学自动化 做电能表的技术支持
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    30
    发表于 2006-5-1 20:46:00 | 只看该作者
    服装设计与工程专业   做的是QC
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    31
    发表于 2006-5-1 23:18:00 | 只看该作者
    我们将有一天会明白,死永远不能够夺去我们的灵魂所获得的东西,因为她所获得的,和她自己是一体。
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    32
    发表于 2006-5-2 12:22:00 | 只看该作者
    我是做房地产的,
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    33
    发表于 2006-5-2 15:34:00 | 只看该作者
    学高分子材料,在搞ERP实施!算上上过计算机课还能拉上点关系!
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

  • TA的每日心情

    2015-1-6 15:11
  • 签到天数: 4 天

    [LV.2]偶尔看看I

    34
    发表于 2006-5-3 01:59:00 | 只看该作者
    学文化市场管理 做的是IT
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    35
    发表于 2006-5-3 14:45:00 | 只看该作者
    只要能够物有所用就可以了
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    36
    发表于 2006-5-4 13:43:00 | 只看该作者
    还没毕业,明年就可以在这里发言了,现在看看先~~~~" C8 T+ h! q* s" K. X4 z* A& a( o- O; P
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    37
    发表于 2006-5-6 00:29:00 | 只看该作者
    我是计算机技术专业。。现在从事外贸行业。主管吧。。兼职网络和计算机。我的QQ81988887或者274348
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

  • TA的每日心情
    开心
    2016-6-1 15:44
  • 签到天数: 1 天

    [LV.1]初来乍到

    38
    发表于 2006-5-7 15:39:00 | 只看该作者
    学会计,做的差不多也是会计吧!今年6月毕业!!
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    39
    发表于 2006-5-7 19:22:00 | 只看该作者
    FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY8 e8 O% {# P' |) H) F9 V2 r, P
    78-MAY N.Y. St. B.J. 22
    % y; V5 {" p# C/ m- B. z2 X: L' e- [New York State Bar Journal3 s7 }. o9 I1 \
    May, 20065 [0 d& M" i* \: H4 a1 E
    0 D' l. o7 S; H7 x" O  T
    Department
    8 @7 k0 x$ P/ G) @) FBurden of Proof
    % d, ?; Q, g& t+ e
    / Q& ?8 i! c& a1 N; s. O*22 IS FRYE STILL GENERALLY ACCEPTED?
    ( W; S1 d$ b% r5 C6 {% {) `$ O, j2 E3 t 4 A; M3 G6 b, h
    David Paul Horowitz [FNa1]
    ' i8 E; C  N* O2 A: v 0 S$ E4 {' c1 P! T
    Copyright © 2006 by the New York State Bar Association; David Paul Horowitz
    , S6 z9 [% v1 a+ k# K
    5 \1 g' O/ q; T: w+ Y. TOne of the first Burden of Proof columns [FN1] was an overview of expert witness practice in New York state courts, a topic worthy of greater attention in several respects. One of those areas is the topic of this column, and the next: challenges to the admissibility of expert testimony at trial based upon the technical or scientific basis of, and the methodology utilized by, the proffered expert. Litigating in this area requires understanding the development of, and tensions between, the Frye [FN2] (this column) and Daubert [FN3] (next column) standards, and their application by the courts of this state. The original column cautioned "[t]his is an evolving area, and practitioners are advised to pay close attention to new cases in this area, particularly any Appellate Division pronouncements." If I must say so myself, good advice -- then, now, and for the foreseeable future.
    6 C! ~  P: ?" Q0 D2 ~9 c& @; SFrye and Daubert provide a framework for trial judges in deciding whether expert testimony is to be permitted and, if the expert is permitted to testify, whether to limit the scope of the expert's testimony. Frye's "general acceptance" test reigned in New York courts and in federal courts from 1923 to 1993. However, in 1993 the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert, holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 superceded Frye. Thereafter, in federal court, Frye was replaced with Daubert. The role of federal judges in determining whether a jury should hear a particular expert's testimony was re-cast, with the judge acting as "gatekeeper." General acceptance as a measure of reliability, while still a factor to be considered, was no longer the sole, or even key, test. More on Daubert next issue. For now, back to Frye.
    5 i$ }$ H) z3 dIn 1923 the District of Columbia Circuit decided Frye v. United States, reviewing a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony of the results of a "deception test," a.k.a. a lie detector test. The Circuit Court, quoting directly from the defendant's brief, explained when expert testimony is appropriate: 8 B) G0 `9 d4 w1 e
    When the question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge, then the opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence. [FN4]
    ) ~# k) b$ ]; q. T. TAssuming expert testimony was appropriate, what was the role, and what standards governed the role, of the trial judge in vetting the basic soundness of the proposed testimony? The Frye court, in what has become known thereafter in the vernacular as the "Frye test," explained:
    / W; t" U2 w" |" QSomewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. [FN5]2 [) i) J6 _7 @. D- u
    "General acceptance in the particular field" became the sine qua non for the reliability of expert testimony. New York state courts readily adopted Frye and, despite a lively debate in some of the lower courts, the New York Court of Appeals continues to follow Frye.2 B. Y  ]' x9 T, |. h8 t3 u3 P
    In determining whether expert testimony is appropriate, trial courts in New York must carefully exercise their discretion. In deciding when jurors would benefit from the testimony of an expert, 7 {7 T, \8 c" L  Y0 ]3 Q
    courts should be wary not to exclude such testimony merely because, to some degree, it invades the jury's province. As we have previously noted, "expert opinion testimony is used in partial substitution for the jury's otherwise exclusive province which is to draw 'conclusions from the facts.' It is a kind of authorized encroachment in that respect." [FN6]
    5 H9 J; p! s2 Q. j6 MIn evaluating the reliability of expert testimony, Frye may be satisfied in three ways. Professor Richard Farrell, in Prince, Richardson, explains: 6 Z7 G- H4 A% @+ C
    First, general acceptance may be so notorious that the court may take judicial notice of it.... Second, acceptance may be established by reference to "legal writings and judicial opinions." ... Third, if acceptance cannot be established by either judicial notice or the legal *23 literature, then the Trial Judge may conduct a hearing at which the proponent may establish admissibility by offering evidence of acceptance, including the expert's own testimony (citations omitted). [FN7]
    , T6 D! A# K. C: F/ sTwice since the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert, the New York State Court of Appeals has reaffirmed that Frye remains the standard in New York, [FN8] quoting verbatim from the original opinion. [FN9]( ?" `5 n% x2 n7 |
    A Frye challenge may arise at trial, in a hearing before trial as part of a motion in limine, or as part of a summary judgment motion. [FN10]0 \% C' \2 a$ w0 |+ L+ x! a
    In a 2004 decision, Marsh v. Smyth, [FN11] the First Department examined the preclusion of two of plaintiff's experts in a medical malpractice action following a Frye hearing, on the grounds that their theories concerning the positioning of the arm of the injured party during surgery were not generally accepted in the medical field. Citing Frye, the First Department held this was error: "The experts' testimony, and the supporting medical literature, satisfied the Frye standard, and a jury should be permitted to hear the testimony." [FN12]
    ) H0 x& g% B& M2 gIn Zito v. Zabarsky, [FN13] a Second Department decision citing Justice Saxe's concurring opinion in Marsh, that court, in reviewing a trial court's preclusion of plaintiff's medical experts in a medical malpractice action, reminded litigants that the "burden of proving general acceptance rests upon the party offering the disputed expert testimony." [FN14] Acknowledging that the alleged causal link between an excessive dose of Zocar and the onset of polymyositis was a novel one, warranting a Frye hearing, the Second Department held that the trial court had "erred in applying Frye too restrictively," [FN15] precluding the expert on the basis that no medical literature reported the alleged causal connection: 1 D* v  L$ y6 W/ {( J  Q; J
    In that regard, I agree with the statement in the concurring opinion of Justice David B. Saxe of the Appellate Division, First Department, in [Marsh] that it is not necessary "that the underlying support for the theory of causation consist of cases or studies considering circumstances exactly parallel to those under consideration in the litigation. It is sufficient if a synthesis of various studies or cases reasonably permits the conclusion reached by the plaintiff's expert." As stated in Beck v Warner-Lambert Co. (NYLJ, Sept. 13, 2002, at 18, col 2), which also involved a novel scientific opinion concerning the causal relationship between the ingestion of a drug and the development of a disease, "general acceptance does not necessarily mean that a majority of the scientists involved subscribe to the conclusion. Rather it means that those espousing the theory or opinion have followed generally accepted scientific principles and methodology in evaluating clinical data to reach their conclusions." [FN16]
    / c  ~! k- ]' [) b2 X! i' p  ^After carefully reviewing the proof that was put forward a trial, the Second Department concluded: # d& e7 E5 t* @7 q. V! S4 h% o
    Moreover, the trial court, while purporting to credit the deductive reasoning of the plaintiff's experts, apparently believed that the Frye test could only be satisfied with medical texts, studies, or other literature which supported the plaintiff's theory of causation under circumstances virtually identical to those of the plaintiff. However, the Frye test is not that exacting. 2 Z# b# N1 q/ j0 F; s- k6 z* V& Q5 S: x
    The fact that there was no textual authority directly on point to support the experts' opinion is relevant only to the weight to be given the testimony, but does not preclude its admissibility.
    & Z) m' d! D) s9 kA strict application of the Frye test may result in disenfranchising persons entitled to sue for the negligence of tortfeasors. With the plethora of new drugs entering the *24 market, the first users of a new drug who sustain injury because of the dangerous properties of the drug or inappropriate treatment protocols will be barred from obtaining redress if the test were restrictively applied. [FN17]. q  S& n2 b, N3 E- j( C9 M
    Finally, addressing the trial court's having conducted what it called a Frye/Daubert hearing, the Second Department stated, in a footnote, that "New York has not adopted the Daubert standard, but rather continues to adhere to the Frye test for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence." [FN18]
    0 q! F2 ?9 q+ |$ z. [Frye's general acceptance test continues to be followed in the Third [FN19] and Fourth Departments. [FN20]
    ' o" k6 q7 R" a7 {6 t1 pWith Frye so firmly entrenched in New York state court practice vis-à-vis reliability and claims of novel scientific evidence, does Daubert have'a role to play in our state courts? Next issue's column will, I hope, shed some light on this question.8 @1 z1 x- T7 _4 s" ?

    5 C- k- e8 Z1 p+ }) F" v1 I" x[FNa1]. DAVID PAUL HOROWITZ (dh 15@nyu.edu) practices as a plaintiff's personal injury litigator in New York City. Mr. Horowitz teaches New York Practice at New York Law School, is a member of the Office of Court Administration's CPLR Advisory Committee, and is a frequent lecturer and writer on the subject.4 D; ]4 {. Z- e, G& S
    9 I, i! G, P: F( y. c/ f2 W
    [FN1]. David Paul Horowitz, Burden of Proof, "Expert Witness Primer," N.Y. St. B.J. (Feb. 2005) p. 18.0 u* M4 a5 `( g7 L# S7 k, Y) e

    % b. X+ m8 ~! R[FN2]. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
    3 K- b% G9 Q$ ]+ |' a
    % D6 k' I5 I8 b: R[FN3]. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).! E" Z8 d; B& @0 B

    / I, [7 \" q$ S9 ^[FN4]. Frye, 293 F. at 1015.: V. q% v2 H! s- [

    . Q. z9 G/ a& x' t9 B4 U, x# t[FN5]. Id.$ n7 r/ W, N! Z) b

    ; I/ e" v  o- F& e8 ~* x[FN6]. People v. Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 157, 726 N.Y.S.2d 361 (2001) (quoting People v. Jones, 73 N.Y.2d 427, 430-31, 541 N.Y.S.2d 340 (1989) (internal citation omitted) (quoting People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430, 432, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1983))).
    ! d: N1 L: M1 _" J( `. @
    ) f) ~7 g# |8 y  d[FN7]. Prince, Richardson on Evidence, § 7-311 (11th ed. 2005).. G1 F! V! V. `2 ?! F

      J6 ?- _2 `) u1 P[FN8]. People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417, 611 N.Y.S.2d 97 (1994) (DNA profiling was properly admitted at trial under the Frye test); see People v. Wernick, 89 N.Y.2d 111, 651 N.Y.S.2d 392 (1996) (expert testimony was required to be based upon scientific principles sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance).: D& }. l2 Y" r9 }

    # P2 O1 L5 {* W% M[FN9]. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417.
    % Y. t  Q; E& N* Z1 x3 I/ ?2 S
    3 r* h) M3 D( C: t' h! f0 |[FN10]. See, e.g., Heckstall v. Pincus, 19 A.D.3d 203, 797 N.Y.S.2d 445 (1st Dep't 2005).5 P# V* y/ X& s
    1 G# g% x, v: R8 _' M0 @
    [FN11]. 12 A.D.3d 307, 785 N.Y.S.2d 440 (1st Dep't 2004).
    5 T( K1 L5 }$ ^% s( H
      [) {: s9 g/ u1 O" [[FN12]. Id., y1 c6 z) L- d  c

    ' X8 ^0 B: g  w  M[FN13]. No. 2004-01148, 2006 WL205067 (2d Dep't Jan. 24, 2006).
    : @0 p, e2 _7 M& e+ s+ ~% Q1 T# a3 r0 Q: |
    [FN14]. Id.& h; C2 U$ j% D0 N# p9 O' f, x

      k6 H4 m' G( v+ X2 P+ q6 @3 J7 g[FN15]. Id.
    ! t# u6 A8 D' M1 r  S" X  ^( {4 e) k, A) s7 A5 v' N3 r
    [FN16]. Id.
    6 _( Y0 n  P! N2 S3 {4 j7 A4 G  A# K- S( [. @7 X7 j
    [FN17]. Id.
    & P5 T0 D' R' \# `1 k" e' l2 g$ `1 }0 C  H" c( i8 K& y1 x. `# u
    [FN18]. Id.6 A5 `- e/ K( @* ~- Z( A* R( _& u* O7 j

    - h1 P0 b% @4 [& Q" Y' n[FN19]. People v. Cole, 24 A.D.3d 1021, 807 N.Y.S.2d 166 (3d Dep't 2005).% B6 S2 F0 _; G' h) I4 L; C* d4 l; h

    / R5 V8 ~, I+ n1 v3 O[FN20]. People v. Wooten, 283 A.D.2d 931, 725 N.Y.S.2d 767 (4th Dep't 2001).
    3 l/ N' @" C' XEND OF DOCUMENT
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    该用户从未签到

    40
    发表于 2006-5-7 19:26:00 | 只看该作者
    78-MAY N.Y. St. B.J. 22
    3 H" q: z* v& Q- Z6 e! t% I; e
    % E% C0 Q1 g# H. F. V# I: GNew York State Bar Journal
    , b9 P" `! c) O. WMay, 20066 E2 W/ L1 e( [( R
    " G( J% t- t- s5 Y, Z& |. g8 q
    % G$ _/ a# }6 R3 o$ u
    Department
    2 `4 s* Q: a$ c4 o* S* zBurden of Proof
    - C: t" c& N* ^$ u% F4 |9 w7 e8 V: n$ \1 ?6 z5 N" }" Y8 J

    : n3 S2 c- `. b6 H*22 IS FRYE STILL GENERALLY ACCEPTED?
    4 p2 D& ^1 p# p% K; E+ o( f0 I0 O! p
    % |% Y% |7 u, ?# B4 y
    David Paul Horowitz [FNa1]
    + c/ n5 v: t) G6 q& V$ G/ e, m8 o& h( i$ h" k8 J# H8 r
    5 J% N& _' E% e$ q7 K- P
    Copyright © 2006 by the New York State Bar Association; David Paul Horowitz* L) G; c. v, m: _5 G; `

    : w) C. c6 V3 t) D/ [One of the first Burden of Proof columns [FN1] was an overview of expert witness practice in New York state courts, a topic worthy of greater attention in several respects. One of those areas is the topic of this column, and the next: challenges to the admissibility of expert testimony at trial based upon the technical or scientific basis of, and the methodology utilized by, the proffered expert. Litigating in this area requires understanding the development of, and tensions between, the Frye [FN2] (this column) and Daubert [FN3] (next column) standards, and their application by the courts of this state. The original column cautioned "[t]his is an evolving area, and practitioners are advised to pay close attention to new cases in this area, particularly any Appellate Division pronouncements." If I must say so myself, good advice -- then, now, and for the foreseeable future.
    * w+ a- F2 U  dFrye and Daubert provide a framework for trial judges in deciding whether expert testimony is to be permitted and, if the expert is permitted to testify, whether to limit the scope of the expert's testimony. Frye's "general acceptance" test reigned in New York courts and in federal courts from 1923 to 1993. However, in 1993 the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert, holding that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 superceded Frye. Thereafter, in federal court, Frye was replaced with Daubert. The role of federal judges in determining whether a jury should hear a particular expert's testimony was re-cast, with the judge acting as "gatekeeper." General acceptance as a measure of reliability, while still a factor to be considered, was no longer the sole, or even key, test. More on Daubert next issue. For now, back to Frye.
    0 X: i7 U; \+ e% V; hIn 1923 the District of Columbia Circuit decided Frye v. United States, reviewing a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony of the results of a "deception test," a.k.a. a lie detector test. The Circuit Court, quoting directly from the defendant's brief, explained when expert testimony is appropriate:
    0 \; \* B; M) T- qWhen the question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge, then the opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence. [FN4]* G: w& b* n  w2 ?2 V
    Assuming expert testimony was appropriate, what was the role, and what standards governed the role, of the trial judge in vetting the basic soundness of the proposed testimony? The Frye court, in what has become known thereafter in the vernacular as the "Frye test," explained:
    1 k0 y1 M5 w. D7 ]9 ]& s5 E, gSomewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. [FN5]
    + I3 S; E3 D; [* `; L"General acceptance in the particular field" became the sine qua non for the reliability of expert testimony. New York state courts readily adopted Frye and, despite a lively debate in some of the lower courts, the New York Court of Appeals continues to follow Frye.
    4 C7 b6 X- s8 i" R4 b4 @In determining whether expert testimony is appropriate, trial courts in New York must carefully exercise their discretion. In deciding when jurors would benefit from the testimony of an expert, ! t$ g# J5 y# k
    courts should be wary not to exclude such testimony merely because, to some degree, it invades the jury's province. As we have previously noted, "expert opinion testimony is used in partial substitution for the jury's otherwise exclusive province which is to draw 'conclusions from the facts.' It is a kind of authorized encroachment in that respect." [FN6], Z4 C0 W8 ]: ^" e0 F# E' t2 a
    In evaluating the reliability of expert testimony, Frye may be satisfied in three ways. Professor Richard Farrell, in Prince, Richardson, explains:
    # `4 H' Z2 N1 r, I7 ^5 LFirst, general acceptance may be so notorious that the court may take judicial notice of it.... Second, acceptance may be established by reference to "legal writings and judicial opinions." ... Third, if acceptance cannot be established by either judicial notice or the legal *23 literature, then the Trial Judge may conduct a hearing at which the proponent may establish admissibility by offering evidence of acceptance, including the expert's own testimony (citations omitted). [FN7]9 y; P1 W% d* p1 G& [2 i8 ^# Z" s
    Twice since the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert, the New York State Court of Appeals has reaffirmed that Frye remains the standard in New York, [FN8] quoting verbatim from the original opinion. [FN9]
    8 q7 N* |' p% Z- P: |) kA Frye challenge may arise at trial, in a hearing before trial as part of a motion in limine, or as part of a summary judgment motion. [FN10]
    % H/ o4 z3 K$ e, YIn a 2004 decision, Marsh v. Smyth, [FN11] the First Department examined the preclusion of two of plaintiff's experts in a medical malpractice action following a Frye hearing, on the grounds that their theories concerning the positioning of the arm of the injured party during surgery were not generally accepted in the medical field. Citing Frye, the First Department held this was error: "The experts' testimony, and the supporting medical literature, satisfied the Frye standard, and a jury should be permitted to hear the testimony." [FN12]
    , m  V$ T7 L" ^, Q" A; D3 e/ {5 aIn Zito v. Zabarsky, [FN13] a Second Department decision citing Justice Saxe's concurring opinion in Marsh, that court, in reviewing a trial court's preclusion of plaintiff's medical experts in a medical malpractice action, reminded litigants that the "burden of proving general acceptance rests upon the party offering the disputed expert testimony." [FN14] Acknowledging that the alleged causal link between an excessive dose of Zocar and the
    回复 支持 反对

    使用道具 举报

    本版积分规则

    关闭

    下沙大学生网推荐上一条 /1 下一条

    快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表