Shearon et al v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER AND REASONS granting 64 Motion in limine to exclude the causation testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, as set forth herein. FURTHER ORDERED that the 65 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and that plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 08/25/2022. (ko)

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RONALD SHEARON, ET AL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 17-3155

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION
INC., ET AL.

SECTION I

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion1 in limine to exclude the opinions of plaintiffs’
medical causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook (“Cook”), filed by defendants, BP
Exploration & Production, Inc.; BP America Production Company; BP p.l.c.;
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.; Transocean Deepwater, Inc; Transocean Holdings,
LLC; Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.; Transocean, Ltd.; and Triton
Asset Leasing GmbH (collectively, “defendants”). Defendants have also filed a
motion 2 for summary judgment, contending that if the Court grants defendants’
motion in limine, then summary judgment will also be warranted because plaintiffs,
Ronald Shearon (“Shearon”), Patricia Maria Rye (“Rye”), minor 1, and minor 2,
(collectively, “plaintiffs”), will lack necessary expert testimony. Plaintiffs oppose 3
both motions. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion in limine and
the motion for summary judgment.

R. Doc. No. 64 (motion in limine); R. Doc. No. 75 (reply).
R. Doc. No. 65 (motion for summary judgment); R. Doc. No. 76 (reply).
3 R. Doc. No. 66 (opposition to motion for summary judgment); R. Doc. No. 70
(opposition to motion in limine).
1
2

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 18

I.

BACKGROUND

The instant action is a “B3” case arising out of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 4 B3 cases involve “claims for personal injury and wrongful
death due to exposure to oil and/or other chemicals used during the oil spill response
(e.g., dispersant).” In re Oil Spill by Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in Gulf of Mexico,
on Apr. 20, 2010, No. MDL 2179, 2021 WL 6053613, at *9 (E.D. La. Apr. 1, 2021)
(Barbier, J.). In the course of the MDL proceedings, Judge Barbier approved the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, which
included a Back-End Litigation Option (“BELO”) permitting certain class members
to sue the defendants for later-manifested physical conditions. Id. at *2. The B3
plaintiffs, by contrast, either opted out of the class action settlement agreement or
were excluded from its class definition. Id. at *10 n.3. To prevail on their claims, the
“B3 plaintiffs must prove that the legal cause of the claimed injury or illness is
exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response.” 5
Shearon alleges that from May 2010 through April 2012 he was employed to
“put out [the] boom, skim oil, pick up oil and dispersant soaked boom, pick up tarmats
and tarballs, and place oil in trash bags.” 6 Shearon alleges that, following the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, he was exposed to oil and dispersants in the course of
this employment as a clean-up worker 7 in multiple locations along the coast of

R. Doc. No. 6 (“Severing 780 Cases in the B3 Pleading Bundle and Re-allotting Them
Among the District Judges of the Eastern District of Louisiana”) (Barbier, J.).
5 Id. at 53 (noting that “proving causation will be a key hurdle for the B3 plaintiffs.”).
6 R. Doc. No. 64-2, at 3.
7 Id. at 3–5.
4

2

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 3 of 18

Louisiana, and as a resident of Louisiana. 8 According to Shearon, as a result of this
exposure, he suffers from, among other things, respiratory issues, eye and skin
irritation, chemical burns, mood changes, anxiety, gastrointestinal issues, nerve
damage, headaches, nausea, fatigue, vertigo, blurred vision, lower back and kidney
issues. 9
Rye, Shearon’s wife, has asserted that, due to exposure to oil and dispersants
through contact with her husband’s clothing and person, and as a resident of
Louisiana, 10 she suffers from digestive issues, abdominal pain, headaches, ear, nose,
and throat issues, and Barrett’s Esophagus. 11 Plaintiffs minor 1 and minor 2 allege
exposure to crude oil and dispersants through contact with their father’s clothing and
person, and as a resident of Louisiana, 12 causing minor 1 to develop respiratory
issues, headaches, abdominal pain, and digestive issues, 13 and minor 2 to develop
respiratory issues, runny nose, sinus issues, and headaches. 14
Plaintiffs filed the instant civil action, seeking a jury trial with respect to their
claims, which include negligence under general maritime law; gross negligence under
general maritime law; negligence per se under general maritime law, state and
federal law; claims under Louisiana nuisance law; loss of consortium claims under

Id. at 7.
Id.
10 R. Doc. No. 64-3, at 4, 7.
11 Id.
12 R. Doc. No. 64-4, at 4–6; R. Doc. No. 64-5, at 4–6.
13 R. Doc. No. 64-4, at 7.
14 R. Doc. No. 64-5, at 7.
8
9

3

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 4 of 18

Louisiana law; negligence, gross negligence and/or failure to warn under state law;
breach of contract; and battery. 15
To support their claim that exposure to oil and dispersants caused their health
problems, plaintiffs provides a medical causation analysis completed by Cook. 16 Cook
is a retired Navy physician, a fellow of the American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, and is board certified in occupational medicine, public
health, and general preventative medicine. 17
Cook’s report utilized a “general causation approach to determine if a reported
health complaint can be the result of exposures sustained in performing cleanup
work” and to assess “the likelihood that occupational exposures that occurred during
work in oil spill cleanup caused disease, contributed to the development of disease,
affected the severity of disease, or exacerbated pre-existing disease that workers have
associated with potential exposures.” 18
Cook’s report is organized into five chapters. The first chapter outlines Cook’s
qualifications, which are not challenged. 19 The second chapter provides background
on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
The third chapter describes Cook’s methodology. The first step, as described in
Cook’s report, is to “review and analyze the available scientific literature to determine

R. Doc. No. 1, at 19–34.
R. Doc. No. 64-10.
17 Id. at 5.
18 Id. at 14.
19 R. Doc. No. 64-1, at 3.
15
16

4

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 5 of 18

the strength of an association between environmental exposure and a health effect.” 20
Cook states that, as part of this literature review, he selected the studies included in
his general causation analysis “based on the quality of the study and study design.” 21
Finally, Cook applies the Bradford Hill factors to the selected studies to “to determine
if a cause-and-effect relationship exists or not.” 22 The Bradford Hill factors, which
environmental toxicologists employ for causation analysis, include: (1) temporal
relationship; (2) strength of the association; (3) dose-response relationship; (4)
replication of findings; (5) biological plausibility; (6) consideration of alternative
explanations; (7) cessation of exposure; (8) specificity of the association; and (9)
consistency with other knowledge. Grant v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4334, 2022
WL 2467682, at *4 (E.D. La. July 6, 2022) (Vance, J.) (citing Fed. Judicial Ctr.,
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 600 (3d ed. 2011)). Cook explains that
“[d]rawing causal inferences after finding an association and considering these
factors requires judgment and analysis to determine if a cause-and-effect relationship
exists or not.” 23
The fourth chapter of Cook’s report recounts the history of oil spills and related
clean-up efforts and analyzes prior studies on the health effects associated with

R. Doc. No. 64-10, at 17.
Id. at 19.
22 Id. at 24. “Sir Bradford Hill was a world-renowned epidemiologist who articulated
a nine-factor set of guidelines in his seminal methodological article on causality
inferences.” Jones v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 234 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1267 (N.D. Ala.
2017) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
23 R. Doc. No. 64-10, at 24.
20
21

5

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 6 of 18

exposure to oil. 24 These studies include the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health’s (“NIOSH”) 2011 final health hazard evaluation (“HHE”) report on the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill Coast Guard cohort
study, and the Gulf Long-Term Follow-Up study (“GuLF Study”). Cook, following a
close analysis of the above studies, concludes that there is a relationship between oil
exposure among clean-up workers and a number of dermal, ocular, neurological, and
respiratory conditions. 25
Finally, the fifth chapter contains Cook’s opinions on general causation for four
categories of medical conditions: (1) respiratory conditions; (2) dermal conditions; (3)
ocular conditions; and (4) cancers. Ultimately, Cook concludes that a “[g]eneral
causation analysis indicates that these acute and chronic [respiratory, dermal,

Id. at 32.
“During the response and cleanup activities, workers complained of various acute
medical symptoms, including nasal congestion, cough, shortness of breath,
headaches, nausea, dizziness, dermal irritation or rash, itchy and sore eyes, as well
as heat-related conditions.” Id. at 36 (discussing the results of the NIOSH HHE
report); “Neurological symptoms were also noted to have a significant relationship in
oil-exposed responders, including headaches, lightheadedness, difficulty
concentrating, numbness/tingling sensation, blurred vision, and memory loss or
confusion . . . . The cohort was also determined to have demonstrated a significant
association between oil-exposed responders and hypertension, as well as chest pain,
mitral valve disorders, sudden heartbeat changes, and palpitations . . . .” Id. at 44
(describing the “longitudinal data that shows a significant relationship between oilexposed responders and respiratory symptoms” from the ongoing Coast Guard cohort
study); Symptoms, such as coughing, wheezing, burning in nose, throat, lungs, and
eyes “had a positive association with both direct work with dispersants and indirect
work with dispersants . . . .” Id. at 59 (discussing the results of the GuLF Study).
24
25

6

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 7 of 18

ocular] conditions can occur in individuals exposed to crude oil, including weathered
crude oil, during oil spill response and cleanup work.” 26
II.

STANDARDS OF LAW
A.

Motion in Limine

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert witness
testimony. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 588 (1993); United
States v. Hitt, 473 F.3d 146, 148 (5th Cir. 2006). Rule 702 provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise
if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge
will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods;
and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the
facts of the case.
“To qualify as an expert, ‘the witness must have such knowledge or experience in [his]
field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the
trier in his search for truth.’” United States v. Hicks, 389 F.3d 514, 524 (5th Cir. 2004)
(quoting United States v. Bourgeois, 950 F.2d 980, 987 (5th Cir. 1992)).
Daubert “provides the analytical framework for determining whether expert
testimony is admissible under Rule 702.” Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239,

Id. at 87, 92, 99. With respect to cancers, Cook notes that “[m]ost of the studies that
have been done . . . show increased prevalence in acute symptoms . . . .” However, he
also notes that, because of the differing latency periods for various cancers, “[a]t this
time there are no epidemiology studies that show exposures to crude oil, weathered
crude oil, or dispersants cause cancer.” Id. at 99–102.
26

7

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 8 of 18

243 (5th Cir. 2002). Both scientific and nonscientific expert testimony is subject to
the Daubert framework, which requires a trial court to make a preliminary
assessment to “determine whether the expert testimony is both reliable and
relevant.” Burleson v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 393 F.3d 577, 584 (5th Cir.
2004); see Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 147.
A number of nonexclusive factors may be considered with respect to the
reliability inquiry, including: (1) whether the technique has been tested, (2) whether
the technique has been subjected to peer review and publication, (3) the technique’s
potential error rate, (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the
technique’s operation, and (5) whether the technique is generally accepted in the
relevant scientific community. Burleson, 393 F.3d at 584. The reliability inquiry must
remain flexible, however, as “not every Daubert factor will be applicable in every
situation; and a court has discretion to consider other factors it deems relevant.” Guy
v. Crown Equip. Corp., 394 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2004); see Runnels v. Tex.
Children’s Hosp. Select Plan, 167 F. App’x 377, 381 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[A] trial judge
has ‘considerable leeway’ in determining ‘how to test an expert’s reliability.’” (quoting
Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152)). “Both the determination of reliability itself and the
factors taken into account are left to the discretion of the district court consistent
with its gatekeeping function under [Rule] 702.” Munoz v. Orr, 200 F.3d 291, 301 (5th
Cir. 2000).
As for determining relevancy, the proposed testimony must be relevant “not
simply in the way all testimony must be relevant [under Rules 401 and 402], but also

8

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 9 of 18

in the sense that the expert’s proposed opinion would assist the trier of fact to
understand or determine a fact in issue.” Bocanegra v. Vicmar Servs., Inc., 320 F.3d
581, 584 (5th Cir. 2003). “There is no more certain test for determining when experts
may be used than the common sense inquiry whether the untrained layman would be
qualified to determine intelligently and to the best degree the particular issue
without enlightenment from those having a specialized understanding of the subject
involved in the dispute.” Vogler v. Blackmore, 352 F.3d 150, 156 n.5 (5th Cir. 2003)
(quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702, Advisory Committee Note).
“[W]hen expert testimony is challenged under Rule 702 and Daubert, the
burden of proof rests with the party seeking to present the testimony.” Kennedy v.
Magnolia Marine Transp. Co., 189 F. Supp. 3d 610, 615 (E.D. La. 2016) (Africk, J.).
The Court applies a preponderance of the evidence standard when performing its
gatekeeping function under Daubert. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n.10. And the
Court is not bound by the rules of evidence—except those rules concerning
privileges—when doing so. See id.
B.

Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is proper when, after reviewing the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits, a court determines that
there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[A] party seeking summary judgment always
bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its
motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate

9

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 10 of 18

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
323 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment need not produce evidence
negating the existence of a material fact; it need only point out the absence of evidence
supporting the other party’s case. Id.; see also Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190,
1195–96 (5th Cir. 1986) (“There is no sound reason why conclusory allegations should
suffice to require a trial when there is no evidence to support them even if the movant
lacks contrary evidence.”).
Once the party seeking summary judgment carries that burden, the
nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a
genuine dispute of material fact for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The showing of a genuine issue is not satisfied by
creating “‘some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,’ by ‘conclusory
allegations,’ by ‘unsubstantiated assertions,’ or by only a ‘scintilla’ of evidence.” Little
v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Rather, a
genuine issue of material fact exists when the “evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
“Although the substance or content of the evidence submitted to support or
dispute a fact on summary judgment must be admissible . . . the material may be
presented in a form that would not, in itself, be admissible at trial.” Lee v. Offshore
Logistical & Transp., L.L.C., 859 F.3d 353, 355 (5th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).
The party responding to the motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the

10

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 11 of 18

pleadings but must identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue. See
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The nonmoving party’s evidence, however, “is to be
believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [the nonmoving party’s]
favor.” Id. at 255.
If the movant demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the
nonmovant must then articulate specific facts showing a genuine issue and point to
supporting, competent evidence that may be presented in a form admissible at trial.
See Lynch Props., Inc. v. Potomac Ins. Co., 140 F.3d 622, 625 (5th Cir. 1998); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A), (c)(2). These facts must create more than “some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. If the nonmovant fails
to meet their burden of showing a genuine issue for trial that could support a
judgment in favor of the nonmovant, summary judgment must be granted. See Little,
37 F.3d at 1075–76.
III.
A.

LAW & ANALYSIS

Defendants’ Motion in Limine

B3 plaintiffs have the burden of proving that “the legal cause of the claimed
injury or illness is exposure to oil or other chemicals used during the response.” In re
Oil Spill by Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon”, 2021 WL 6053613, at *11; accord Perkins
v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-4476, 2022 WL 972276, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 31, 2022)
(Milazzo, J.).
When determining the admissibility of causation evidence in toxic tort cases,
“[c]ourts use ‘a two-step process . . . . First, the district court must determine whether

11

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 12 of 18

there is general causation. Second, if it concludes that there is admissible generalcausation evidence, the district court must determine whether there is admissible
specific-causation evidence.’” Seaman v. Seacor Marine, LLC, 326 F. App’x 721, 722
(5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine, Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 351 (5th
Cir. 2007) (emphases added in Seaman)). “General causation is whether a substance
is capable of causing a particular injury or condition in the general population, while
specific causation is whether a substance caused a particular individual’s injury.” Id.
(quoting Knight, 482 F.3d at 351).
With respect to general causation, “[s]cientific knowledge of the harmful level
of exposure to a chemical, plus knowledge that the plaintiff was exposed to such
quantities, are minimal facts necessary to sustain the plaintiffs’ burden in a toxic tort
case.” Seaman, 326 F. App’x at 723 (quoting Allen v. Penn. Eng’g Corp., 102 F.3d 194,
199 (5th Cir. 1996)). “A plaintiff in such a case cannot expect lay fact-finders to
understand medical causation; expert testimony is thus required to establish
causation.” Id.
Defendants assert that Cook’s general causation opinion should be excluded
because it is unreliable to the extent that the opinion fails: (1) to identify a harmful
dose of exposure to any particular chemical 27; (2) to verify plaintiffs’ diagnoses 28; and
(3) to follow accepted methodology for evaluating scientific literature. 29
This Court will begin by addressing the defendants’ first argument for finding

R. Doc. No. 64-1, at 6–12.
Id. at 12–13.
29 Id. at 14–17.
27
28

12

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 13 of 18

Cook’s opinion to be unreliable—namely, that the opinion does not identify a harmful
level of exposure to an identified chemical and therefore cannot prove general
causation. The Court agrees with this argument. The Cook report in the present case
suffers from the same flaws which the Court identified in an earlier version of Cook’s
report excluded in Murphy v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 13-1031, 2022 WL 1460093
(E.D. La. May 9, 2022), and Novelozo v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 13-1033, 2022 WL
1460103 (E.D. La. May 9, 2022), insofar as Cook fails to identify a particular chemical
and corresponding dose to which plaintiffs were exposed.
As this Court noted in Novelozo, “[s]cientific knowledge of the harmful level of
exposure to a chemical, plus knowledge that the plaintiff was exposed to such
quantities, are minimal facts necessary to sustain the plaintiffs’ burden [as to general
causation] in a toxic tort case.” 2022 WL 1460103, at *5 (quoting Seaman v. Seacor
Marine, LLC, 326 F. App’x 721, 722 (5th Cir. 2009)). Several sections of this Court
have subsequently concluded that “Cook’s failure to identify the level of exposure to
a relevant chemical that can cause the conditions asserted in plaintiff's complaint
renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of establishing general
causation.” Moore v. BP Expl. & Prod., No. 17-4456, 2022 WL 3594631, at *8 (E.D.
La. Aug. 23, 2022) (Vance, J.); Grant v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 17-4334, 2022 WL
2467682, at *7 (E.D. La. July 6, 2022) (Vance, J.); see also, Reed v. BP Expl. & Prod.,
Inc., No. 17-3603, 2022 WL 3099925, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 4, 2022) (Milazzo, J.);
Favorite v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 17-3192, 2022 WL 2789029, at *3 (E.D. La.
July 15, 2022) (Zainey, J.); Barkley v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 13-995, 2022 WL

13

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 14 of 18

2342474, at *4 (E.D. La. June 29, 2022) (Barbier, J); Harrison v. BP Expl. & Prod.,
No. 17-4346, 2022 WL 2390733, at *6 (E.D. La. July 1, 2022) (Morgan, J.); Street v.
BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 17-3619, 2022 WL 1811144, at *6 (E.D. La. June 2, 2022)
(Ashe, J.).
Plaintiffs address this lack of dose-response data in Cook’s report by asserting
that the defendants’ failure to conduct dermal and biomonitoring of clean-up
workers—which plaintiffs submit “would have created a quantitative exposure and
dose database for these workers” 30—is evidence that “BP consciously, or in the most
favorable light negligently, avoided recording data which would show the exposure
doses of spill workers.” 31 Yet, as noted by other courts, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Unified Area Command, which was composed of several federal and state agencies,
“engaged in extensive and coordinated data collection and environmental monitoring
efforts, in what has been characterized as ‘the largest environmental investigation of
an oil spill ever undertaken.’” In re Deepwater Horizon Belo Cases, 2020 WL 6689212,
at *4 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2020), aff’d sub nom. In re Deepwater Horizon BELO Cases,
2022 WL 104243 (11th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022); accord Peairs v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc.,
No. 17-3596, 2022 WL 2817852, at *10 n.53 (E.D. La. July 19, 2022) (Vance, J.). The
availability of this data “cast[s] doubt on the assertion that there is a lack of
monitoring data associated with the spill.” Peairs, 2022 WL 2817852, at *10 n.53; see
also Harrison, 2022 WL 2390733, at *7.

30
31

R. Doc. No. 70, at 6.
Id. at 11.
14

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 15 of 18

The defendants also argue that Cook’s failure to verify plaintiffs’ diagnoses 32
further renders his opinion unreliable. Per the American Medical Association’s Guide
to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation (“AMA Guide”):
The first step is to establish or verify the diagnosis (i.e., determine what
is wrong with the patient, or what does the patient have?). This step is
accomplished by careful review of the available medical records and/or
examination of the patient. […] Exposure becomes relevant only when
the presence of disease or illness is established. 33
Expert testimony “must be reliable at each and every step or else it is
inadmissible.” Knight, 482 F.3d at 355. The Court’s review of the relevant section of
the AMA Guide—which defendants lodged in the record—demonstrates that the
AMA’s framework is a published technique with explicit standards controlling its
operation. Burleson, 393 F.3d at 584 (discussing the nonexclusive factors for the
reliability inquiry). But Cook’s failure to perform step one of the AMA Guide’s is
concerning because “[e]xposure becomes relevant only when the presence of disease or
illness is established.” 34 Cook’s failure to establish plaintiffs’ diagnoses reveals that
Cook has not “reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of this case.”
Fed. R. Evid. 702(d).
This deficiency is particularly concerning because “the fundamental question
underlying [Cook’s] testimony,” and the Court’s ruling on defendants’ Daubert motion
is “whether the chemicals that [plaintiffs were] exposed to and the type of exposures

Cook’s report does not mention plaintiffs—or any B3 plaintiff—specifically.
Melhorn, M.D., et al., AMA Guide to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury
Causation, (2d ed.) (attached to defendants’ motion as R. Doc. No. 64-11), at 578.
34 Id. (emphasis added).
32
33

15

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 16 of 18

[plaintiffs] experienced cause [plaintiffs’ illnesses].” Knight, 482 F.3d at 352. Without
verifying plaintiffs’ diagnoses, Cook has not sufficiently explained how any particular
study can provide “a reliable basis for the opinion that the types of chemicals
[plaintiffs were] exposed to could cause [their] particular injur[ies] in the general
population.” Id. at 353. As this Court has noted previously, “[w]hile this shortcoming
is not dispositive in the Court’s analysis, it is a factor that weighs against admitting
Cook’s opinions.”
Finally, as the defendants argue in their motion in limine and as other sections
of this Court have agreed, Cook’s reliance on the “ever vs. never” binary exposure
model in his report raises concerns about the reliability of his methodology. See
Grant, 2022 WL 2467682, at *10–11. Cook’s report states that “GuLF STUDY
researchers . . . noted that it would be difficult to obtain accurate and comprehensive
exposure information on participants” in the study as “many of the assessments
would have been made months after the workers were exposed.” 35 Cook also notes
that NIOSH investigators researching the Deepwater Horizon spill “disregarded the
self-reports of [some] workers, determining that the workers’ self-reported exposures
had not been likely.” 36 Accordingly, as the data Cook relied upon for his “ever vs.
never” exposure model itself is of suspect reliability, his analysis suffers from the
same lack of reliability.
Collectively, concerns for the reliability of Cook’s report based on his failure to

35
36

R. Doc. No. 64-10, at 57.
Id. at 42.
16

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 17 of 18

identify a harmful level of exposure, to verify plaintiffs’ diagnoses, and to use
acceptable methodology in evaluating the scientific literature referenced in his report
render his opinion unreliable.
B.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Having determined that Cook’s report should be excluded, the Court now turns
to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The issue of general causation is a
necessary element of plaintiffs’ claims against defendants. Cook is plaintiffs’ sole
expert on general causation. 37 With Cook’s opinion on general causation now
excluded, plaintiffs lack expert testimony with respect to general causation. As a
result, plaintiffs have failed to present a genuine issue of material fact with respect
to their claims that their injuries were caused by exposure to oil and dispersants.
Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment. See, e.g., Moore, 2022 WL
3594631, at *11; Reed, 2022 WL 3099925, at *3; Favorite, 2022 WL 2789029, at *3;
Grant, 2022 WL 2467682, at *12; Barkley, 2022 WL 2342474, at *6; Harrison, 2022
WL 2390733, at *7; Street, 2022 WL 1811144, at *7; Novelozo, 2022 WL 1460103, at
*10.

Plaintiffs’ opposition to the defendants’ motion in limine also notes that Dr. Rachel
Jones “prepare[d] a general exposure assessment based on the available exposure
data and upon the published exposure assessment literature, most of which deals
specifically with exposure assessment of BP Oil Spill response workers.” R. Doc. No.
70, at 4. However, Dr. Jones’ report does not offer an opinion on general causation.
Additionally, Dr. Jones is not a medical doctor and therefore is not qualified to opine
on plaintiffs’ medical diagnoses. Accordingly, Dr. Jones’ report does not cure
plaintiff’s deficiency as to general causation evidence. See, e.g., Peairs, 2022 WL
2817852, at *12.

37

17

Case 2:17-cv-03155-LMA-MBN Document 77 Filed 08/25/22 Page 18 of 18

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion in limine to exclude the causation testimony
of Dr. Jerald Cook is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED and plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, August 25, 2022.

_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18