McClure, et al v. Wyeth, et al
Filing
59
OPINION and ORDER granting 50 Motion in Limine to Exclude Specific Causation Testimony of Dr. Elizabeth Naftalis and Dr. James Waldron. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 3/19/12.(sfla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Bette McClure,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Wyeth, d/b/a Wyeth, Inc.; Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pharmacia &
Upjohn Company, LLC, f/k/a Pharmacia
& Upjohn Company,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 3:04-23274-HMH
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of
(Plaintiff Bette McClure’s (“McClure”) witnesses) Drs. Elizabeth Naftalis (“Dr. Naftalis”) and
James Waldron (“Dr. Waldron”). For the reasons that follow, the court grants Defendants’
motion.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
McClure commenced this products liability action on December 15, 2004, alleging that
her ingestion of hormone replacement therapy medications manufactured by Defendants caused
her to develop breast cancer. (Compl. ¶ 1.) She raises numerous claims against Defendants,
including negligence, strict liability under theories of design defect and failure to warn, and
breach of implied warranty. (Id. ¶¶ 19-49.) On January 26, 2005, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that this action be transferred to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas for consolidated pretrial proceedings. This
action was remanded to this court for further proceedings on January 14, 2011. On January 23,
1
2012, Defendants filed numerous motions in limine, seeking to exclude the testimony of many
of McClure’s experts. At issue here is the testimony of Drs. Neftalis and Waldron, who
McClure designated as specific causation experts. On February 1, 2012, McClure moved for a
two-week extension of time to respond to Defendants’ pending motions. The court granted
McClure’s motion, giving her until February 21, 2012 to respond. McClure, however, has failed
to respond to Defendants’ motion.
II. DISCUSSION OF THE LAW
Under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, expert testimony is admissible if it
will assist the trier of fact and is (1) “based on sufficient facts or data,” (2) “the product of
reliable principles and methods,” and (3) “the principles and methods [have been applied]
reliably to the facts of the case.” In determining whether expert testimony is admissible under
Rule 702, a district court must assess whether an expert’s proffered testimony is both
sufficiently reliable and relevant. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147 (1999).
“The inquiry . . . is a flexible one focusing on the principles and methodology employed by the
expert, not on the conclusions reached.” Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 261
(4th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). The relevance and reliability of expert
testimony is examined by considering “whatever factors bearing on validity that the court finds
to be useful,” id., and may include (1) whether the technique or scientific knowledge can be and
has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review; (3) the
known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether the technique or test is generally accepted
within the community. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993).
2
McClure’s specific causation experts rely upon a “differential diagnosis”1 to conclude
that McClure would not have developed breast cancer but for her ingestion of hormone
replacement therapy medication manufactured by Defendants. (Def. Mot. Limine Exclude
Specific Causation Testimony Ex. 2 (Naftalis Report at 31).) Defendants mount two principal
challenges to the admissibility of Drs. Neftalis and Waldron’s testimony. First, they contend
that the “use of differential diagnosis to establish the cause of an individual woman’s breast
cancer is unreliable because it is not accepted by the relevant medical community and it has not
been peer reviewed, studied, tested, or validated anywhere in the world’s literature or by the
medical and scientific community.” (Id. at 9.) Second, Defendants maintain that even if
differential diagnosis were a reliable methodology for determining the cause of a woman’s
breast cancer, the experts have not applied their methodology reliably to McClure. (Id. at 12.)
As the proponent of the challenged testimony, McClure shoulders the burden in
demonstrating that the methodology employed by Drs. Neftalis and Waldron is reliable and
relevant. Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 259 F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The proponent
of the testimony must establish its admissibility by a preponderance of proof.”); see also
Hendrix v. Evenflo Co., Inc., 609 F.3d 1183, 1198 n.11 (11th Cir. 2010) (“The proponent of
such opinions . . . retains the burden of offering some proof that the expert’s testimony on
general causation is reliable.”). McClure, however, has failed to respond to Defendants’ motion
challenging the admissibility of Drs. Naftalis and Waldron’s testimony. Therefore, the court
concludes that she has failed to carry her burden in demonstrating that Drs. Neftalis and
1
“Differential diagnosis . . . is a standard scientific technique of identifying the cause of a
medical problem by eliminating likely causes until the most probable one is isolated.”
Westberry, 178 F.3d at 262.
3
Waldron’s testimony is admissible.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude specific causation testimony
of Drs. Neftalis and Waldron, docket number 50, is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
March 19, 2012
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?