The other day Ted instanced one example of how rigorous standards for admission of expert evidence often help plaintiffs, who are given a better shot at fighting studies proffered by the defense that they see as dubious. Here's another instance, this time from New Jersey, in which plaintiffs in a low-speed auto collision sought to exclude the defense's introduction of studies finding no chronic health conditions to result from soft-tissue injury in controlled accidents. In this case an appeals court ordered the tests thrown out as lacking in scientific reliability, but the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, ruling that it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to have admitted them in a case which eventuated in a low jury verdict.