Frye Standard

The Frye standard is a rule some courts use to decide whether expert scientific testimony can be admitted. Under Frye, an expert's method or theory is only allowed if it has gained "general acceptance" in the relevant scientific community. It is often called the "general acceptance" test. Courts that follow Frye ask whether other scientists accept the technique, not whether the judge personally finds it reliable.

Origin

The standard comes from Frye v. United States, a 1923 federal appeals court decision that rejected an early lie-detector test because it hadn't gained general scientific acceptance. Frye governed expert evidence in federal courts for decades until the 1993 Daubert decision replaced it federally. A number of states, including California and Pennsylvania, still follow some version of Frye.

Significance in Asbestos Context

For a patient's case, the Frye standard can decide whether key expert witnesses are allowed to testify at all, including doctors who link your disease to asbestos and scientists who analyze fibers in lung tissue. In a Frye state, your legal team must show that the methods your experts used, such as fiber-burden analysis or a particular causation approach, are generally accepted in the field. Defendants often argue that a plaintiff's expert used a fringe or untested method to try to keep that testimony from the jury. Whether your case is in a Frye state or a Daubert state changes how these fights play out, so it's worth asking your attorney which standard applies.

Example Sentence

Because the case was filed in a Frye state, the defense challenged whether the plaintiff's pathologist used a generally accepted method to count asbestos fibers.

Related Terms

Daubert Standard, Expert Witness, Admissibility, General Acceptance, Fiber Burden Analysis, Motion in Limine

Notes

• Ask your attorney whether your case is in a Frye jurisdiction or a Daubert jurisdiction, since the admissibility rules differ.
• Preserve the full basis for each expert's opinion, including the peer-reviewed literature supporting their methods, in case of a general-acceptance challenge.
• Watch for defense motions in limine that seek to exclude your experts before trial.