Berg v. Johnson & Johnson et al
Filing
197
ORDER denying 140 Motion to Exclude; granting in part and denying in part 143 Motion to Exclude; granting in part and denying in part 145 Motion to Exclude; denying 147 Motion to Exclude; denying 149 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 151 Motion to Exclude; denying 153 Motion to Exclude; granting in part and denying in part 155 Motion to Exclude; granting in part and denying in part 156 Motion to Exclude. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 4/12/2013. (KC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEANE BERG,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.;
LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.;
JOHN DOES/JANE DOES 1-30;
UNKNOWN BUSINESSES
AND/OR CORPORATIONS A-Z,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIV. 09-4179-KES
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Inc. move for summary judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims (Docket
149) and also move to exclude the testimony of four of plaintiff’s experts
(Dockets 140, 143, 145, and 147). Defendant Luzenac America, Inc. joins in the
motions (Dockets 151, 153, 155, 156, and 157). For the following reasons,
defendants’ motions to exclude are granted in part and denied in part.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Berg was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in December of 2006. She was 49
years old at the time. Prior to her diagnosis, Berg used Johnson & Johnson
products—Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower—to dust her
perineum for feminine hygiene purposes. She applied the products on a daily
basis from 1975 until 2007.
Talc is one of the main ingredients in Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower
to Shower. Talc is a naturally occurring mineral that is mined from the ground
and used in various applications. Luzenac supplies talc to Johnson & Johnson.
Research has been ongoing studying how talc affects the female
reproductive system for a number of years. For example, Dr. Daniel Cramer,
one of Berg’s proposed experts, published a study in 1982 that found that an
association existed between the application of talc to a woman’s genital area
and the development of ovarian cancer. Defendants stayed current on the
various studies that analyzed any potential hazards associated with talc.
Berg alleges that her application of talc to her perineum caused her
ovarian cancer and brought this product liability action against defendants
because their products did not include any warnings regarding the possible
hazards of applying talc to a woman’s perineum. Berg has identified four expert
opinions in support of her claims.
First, Dr. Cramer is an epidemiologist and is prepared to testify that talc
use in the genital area has a strong causal association with ovarian cancer.
Further, Dr. Cramer’s opinion is that Berg’s frequent application of talc to her
genital area was “the major cause of her invasive serous ovarian cancer[.]”
Docket 148-1 at 18.
2
Second, Dr. Gary Rosenthal is a toxicologist and is prepared to testify
about talc’s immunotoxic potential and how such potential relates to ovarian
cancer. His opinion is that Berg’s frequent talc use “played a role in disease
processes leading to her ovarian cancer.” Docket 144-1 at 11.
Third, Dr. John Godleski is an expert in microscopy, and he examined
tissues taken from Berg’s reproductive system following her diagnosis of ovarian
cancer. He is prepared to testify that talc particles were present in Berg’s
tissues.
Fourth, Dr. David R. Lenorovitz and Dr. Edward E. Karnes are experts in
the field of forensic human factors and warnings. Their designation as experts is
to: (1) ascertain if talc posed a hazard to the populace; (2) ascertain if any such
hazard was open and obvious to a reasonable user; (3) determine if there was a
feasible way to place a warning on the talc product; and (4) determine if there
was a financially and technically reasonable alternative to talc. Docket 173 at 2.
MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY
In this diversity action, federal law governs whether expert testimony is
admissible. Wagner v. Hesston Corp., 450 F.3d 756, 760 (8th Cir. 2006). Rule
702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of expert
testimony. Russell v. Whirlpool Corp., 702 F.3d 450, 456 (8th Cir. 2012). The
rule provides:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
3
experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of
an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon
sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable
principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the
principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702. In applying Rule 702, the trial judge becomes a “gatekeeper”
who screens evidence to ensure its reliability and relevance. Russell, 702 F.3d
at 456. “The rule clearly is one of admissibility rather than exclusion.”
Sappington v. Skyjack, Inc., 512 F.3d 440, 448 (8th Cir. 2008). An expert’s
opinion should be excluded “only if it is so fundamentally unsupported that it
can offer no assistance to the jury.” Id.
The district court applies a three-part test when screening proposed
testimony for experts under Rule 702:
First, evidence based on scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge must be useful to the finder of fact in deciding the
ultimate issue of fact. This is the basic rule of relevancy. Second,
the proposed witness must be qualified to assist the finder of fact.
Third, the proposed evidence must be reliable or trustworthy in an
evidentiary sense, so that, if the finder of fact accepts it as true, it
provides the assistance the finder of fact requires.
Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 270 F.3d 681, 686 (8th Cir. 2001). To satisfy the
reliability requirement, the party offering the expert testimony must show by a
preponderance of the evidence “that the methodology underlying [the expert’s]
conclusions is scientifically valid.” Barrett v. Rhodia, Inc., 606 F.3d 975, 980 (8th
Cir. 2010). In making the reliability determination, the court may consider:
(1) whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether the
4
theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3)
whether the theory or technique has a known or potential error rate and
standards controlling the technique’s operations; and (4) whether the theory or
technique is generally accepted in the scientific community. Russell, 702 F.3d at
456. Additional factors to consider include: “whether the expertise was
developed for litigation or naturally flowed from the expert’s research; whether
the proposed expert ruled out other alterative explanations; and whether the
proposed expert sufficiently connected the proposed testimony with the facts of
the case.” Polski v. Quigley Corp., 538 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 2008). “This
evidentiary inquiry is meant to be flexible and fact specific, and a court should
use, adapt, or reject” these factors as the particular case demands. Russell, 702
F.3d at 456.
When making this inquiry, the court should focus on “principles and
methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.” Kuhn v. Wyeth, Inc.,
686 F.3d 618, 625 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993)). At times, conclusions and methodology are not
entirely distinct from one another, and the court “need not completely pretermit
judicial consideration of an expert’s conclusions.” Id. With these principles in
mind, the court will now address defendants’ motions to exclude expert
testimony.
5
I.
Dr. Daniel Cramer
Defendants’ sole argument in support of their motion to exclude
Dr. Cramer’s testimony goes to the issue of whether his testimony is reliable.1
Defendants attack Dr. Cramer’s testimony regarding both specific causation and
general causation, arguing that the testimony put forth to support each is not
reliable. For purposes of defendants’ motion to exclude Dr. Cramer’s testimony,
the court only considers whether the testimony is admissible and does not
consider whether it is sufficient to prove an element in plaintiff’s case.2 See
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596 (noting the difference between admissibility and
sufficiency).
Dr. Cramer is the Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive
Biology at Harvard Medical School and is a practicing obstetrician and
gynecologist. He has a doctorate degree in epidemiology from the Harvard
School of Public Health.
Dr. Cramer’s expert report relies on epidemiology3 to address two issues:
(1) “the association between use of cosmetic talc powders in the genital area and
1
It appears to be undisputed that Dr. Cramer is qualified to give expert
testimony and that his testimony is relevant.
2
Sufficiency is addressed in the portion of this order dealing with
defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
3
Epidemiology is the “field of public health and medicine that studies the
incidence, distribution, and etiology of disease in human populations.”
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 551 (3d ed. 2011), available at 2011
WL 7724261, *2.
6
ovarian cancer with regard to the likelihood that this is cause-and-effect” and
(2) “the possible relevance of talc use to the occurrence of ovarian cancer in the
specific case of Ms. Deane Berg[.]” Docket 148-1 at 3. The report concludes by
opining that (1) there is a causal association between the use of talc and ovarian
cancer, and (2) chronic talc use was the major cause of Berg’s invasive serous
ovarian cancer. Id. at 18.
Defendants make two arguments in support of their motion to exclude
Dr. Cramer’s testimony.4 First, they argue that Dr. Cramer’s report is
inadmissible because it fails to rule out alternative causes of Berg’s cancer.
Second, they argue that Dr. Cramer’s report is inadmissible because the odds
ratios established in the report and Dr. Cramer’s interpretations of those odds
ratios stem from unreliable methods.
A.
Ruling Out Alternative Causes
Defendants argue that Dr. Cramer’s methodology is not reliable because
he fails to rule out alternative causes of Berg’s cancer. Defendants rely on these
four Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals opinions to support their proposition that
Dr. Cramer was required to rule out alternative causes of Berg’s cancer:
Barrett, 606 F.3d 975; Bland v. Verizon Wireless, (VAW) L.L.C., 538 F.3d 893 (8th
4
Defendants argue extensively in their briefs that Dr. Cramer’s testimony
fails to establish either specific or general causation. Such arguments go to the
sufficiency of Dr. Cramer’s testimony and not the admissibility of it. Because a
motion to exclude expert testimony is concerned only with admissibility, these
arguments will not be addressed in this part of the order.
7
Cir. 2008); Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2006); and
Turner v. Iowa Fire Equip. Co., 229 F.3d 1202 (8th Cir. 2000). None of these
cases, however, require an epidemiologist to rule out all alternative causes in
order for his testimony to be admissible.
In Barrett, the Eighth Circuit found that the district court did not abuse
its discretion when it limited the expert testimony of a toxicologist and a
treating physician. 606 F.3d at 981-82. The toxicologist conceded that she
lacked “significant scientific knowledge underpinning [her] opinion and that she
did not rule out alternative causes of [plaintiff’s] injury. . . . Her opinion . . . was
admittedly based on assumption, without any scientific testing or exposure
analysis.” Id. at 981. The treating physician was not allowed to testify about the
cause of the plaintiff’s toxic exposure because he “assumed that [plaintiff] had
been injured by hydrogen sulfide gas exposure without any scientific verification
and without considering any alternative causes.” Id. at 982. Neither expert
witness was offering epidemiologic evidence. Both experts had glaring
deficiencies in their opinions because they failed to do any scientific
verifications, relied on unsupported assumptions, and did not consider
alternative causes.
In Bland, the Eighth Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by excluding a treating physician’s expert testimony. 538 F.3d at
897-98. The treating physician intended to testify about the differential
8
diagnoses that he conducted. Id. at 897. “A differential diagnosis is a technique
that identifies the cause of a medical condition by eliminating the likely causes
until the most probable cause is isolated.” Bland, 538 F.3d at 897. The treating
physician’s differential diagnosis was inadmissible because he failed to
eliminate other possible causes. Id. The very nature of a differential diagnosis
requires a consideration and elimination of other possible causes. By failing to
consider other causes, a differential diagnosis cannot, by definition, be reliable.
Thus, Bland stands for the proposition that an admissible differential diagnosis
requires the expert to consider and eliminate other possible causes. Bland does
not stand for the proposition that an expert offering epidemiologic evidence
must rule out all other possible causes for his testimony to be admissible.
In Marmo, the Eighth Circuit found that the district court acted within the
bounds of discretion when it precluded a toxicologist from testifying. 457 F.3d
at 758. The toxicologist did not examine the plaintiff, did not inquire about
other toxic exposures, did not exclude confounding factors, and “admitted that
the causation standard she employed was not subject to expression in terms of
a potential rate of error and was a much lower standard than medical
causation.” Id. Marmo does not support defendants’ proposition that an expert
offering epidemiologic evidence must rule out all other possible causes for his
testimony to be admissible.
9
Lastly, in Turner the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court did
not abuse its discretion by excluding a treating physician’s expert opinion. 229
F.3d at 1208-09. Just as in Bland, the treating physician’s opinion was based
on a differential diagnosis in which he “admitted that he made no attempt to
consider all the possible causes, or to exclude each potential cause until only
one remained, or to consider which of two or more non-excludable causes was
the more likely to have caused the condition.” Id. at 1208. Again, failing to
properly administer a differential diagnosis resulted in an inadmissable
differential diagnosis. But Turner does not require that an epidemiologist
perform a differential diagnosis, which would require consideration of other
possible causes.
After a review of these cases, the appropriate legal proposition created
from these opinions is that an expert witness who performs a differential
diagnosis must consider all other possible causes and exclude each potential
cause until only one remains, or consider which of two or more non-excluded
potential causes was the more likely to have caused the condition. Dr. Cramer,
however, does not claim to have performed a differential diagnosis. Indeed, his
testimony is based on epidemiology. Moreover, Dr. Cramer’s report indicates
that he did in fact consider other possible causes of Berg’s cancer. Therefore,
Dr. Cramer’s opinion will not be excluded on the basis that he failed to rule out
all alternative causes. See In re Prempro Prod. Liab. Litig., 586 F.3d 547, 566 (8th
10
Cir. 2009) (noting that an expert’s “explanations as to conclusions not ruled out
went to weight and not admissibility”).
B.
Dr. Cramer’s Methodology
Defendants’ second argument goes to the general methodology applied by
Dr. Cramer. In his expert report, Dr. Cramer notes that, in general, there is an
odds ratio5 of 1.33 between perineal talc use and ovarian cancer. Dr. Cramer
further asserts that a woman with Berg’s characteristics has an odds ratio of
3.53. Defendants argue that the 3.53 odds ratio established in Dr. Cramer’s
report comes from unreliable methods. The court begins its analysis by
addressing defendants’ specific concerns with Dr. Cramer’s findings and then
moves to a more general examination of the methodology employed by
Dr. Cramer.
First, defendants claim Dr. Cramer’s testimony is unreliable because it
conflicts with existing scientific literature that shows the appropriate odds ratio
is more in line with the 1.33 figure that Dr. Cramer generated. But there is “no
requirement that published epidemiological studies supporting an expert’s
opinion exist in order for the opinion to be admissible.” Bonner v. ISP Tech., Inc.,
5
An odds ratio “expresses in quantitative terms the association between
exposure to an agent and a disease.” Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence
568 (3d ed. 2011), available at 2011 WL 7724261, *10-*11. Typically, if the
odds ratio equals 1.0, the risk in exposed individuals is the same as the risk in
unexposed individuals. Id. at 567. The greater the odds ratio the greater the
risk in exposed individuals. Id. For example, an odds ratio of 4.0 indicates that
the risk of disease in the exposed group is four times as high as the risk of
disease in the unexposed group. Id.
11
259 F.3d 924, 929 (8th Cir. 2001). Dr. Cramer’s testimony will be admitted so
long as his methodology is reliable even if his conclusions are novel. See id.
(“The district court could not exclude scientific testimony simply because the
conclusion was ‘novel’ if the methodology and the application of the
methodology were reliable.”).
Second, defendants argue that the testimony is unreliable because he
“cherry-picked” data in order to form an opinion solely for purposes of litigation.
“That an expert testifies based on research he has conducted independent of
litigation provides important, objective proof that the research comports with
the dictates of good science.” Lauzon, 270 F.3d at 692. Dr. Cramer has been
studying the association between talc use and ovarian cancer since at least
1982. He has published several articles on the subject over the past 30 years.
While it is true that his specific findings relevant to this case were generated
during the course of litigation, the methods he employed in reaching his
conclusions are very similar to the methods used in his previous research.
Indeed, the data he used to generate the odds ratios came mostly from his past
research. The only difference between his past and present research seems to
exist in how he categorized his data. Defendants label this “cherry-picking.” The
court views it as simply looking at the existing data from a different perspective.
Therefore, the court concludes that although Dr. Cramer’s opinion was
12
developed during the course of this litigation, the opinion “naturally flowed from
[his] research.”6 Polski, 538 F.3d at 839.
Third, defendants assert that the testimony is unreliable because
Dr. Cramer’s conclusions conflict with his non-litigation research and also
conflict internally. If Dr. Cramer’s previous, or even present, research
contradicts his testimony in this case, certainly defendants can challenge his
credibility during cross-examination. See Kuhn, 686 F.3d at 627 (noting that
when an expert offers testimony that conflicts with his opinion, the appropriate
response from the court is to allow the opposing party to challenge the
credibility of the expert). But unless his methodology is unreliable, the court will
not preclude his testimony.
Defendants also identify alleged inconsistencies in Dr. Cramer’s findings
(i.e., noting a protective effect for limited talc application). Again, this is a
criticism of Dr. Cramer’s results, not his methodology. Defendants will have the
chance at trial during cross examination to attack his results.
The court will now analyze Dr. Cramer’s methodology from a broader
perspective under the seven factors articulated by the Eighth Circuit in Polski
6
Additionally, Dr. Cramer testified that he is attempting to get his latest
findings published in a scientific journal. This is important because it shows
that Dr. Cramer has a stake in his findings independent from this litigation.
Suspicions would arise if an expert were to propose testimony for litigation and
then refuse to stand behind those findings in the scientific community. That is
not the case here.
13
and previously set forth herein, while also addressing additional issues raised
by defendants.7
As indicated in his report, Dr. Cramer performed a case-control study8 to
generate his final conclusions. A case-control study is commonplace in the field
of epidemiology. According to Dr. Cramer, there have been nineteen published
case-control studies addressing the talc and ovarian cancer association since
1982.9 Docket 148-1 at 5, 20-21. Thus, the technique of using a case-control
study to assess the association between talc use and ovarian cancer has been
both tested and subjected to peer review.
Defendants are quick to note that Dr. Cramer’s specific findings have not
been tested or peer reviewed, specifically pointing to Dr. Cramer’s categorization
that allowed for a determination of the “[a]ssociation between genital talc use
7
The court has already discussed whether the expertise was developed
for litigation or naturally flowed from the expert’s research and found that it
weighs in favor of admission. Polski, 538 F.3d at 839.
8
“In case-control studies, the researcher begins with a group of
individuals who have a disease (cases) and then selects a similar group of
individuals who do not have the disease (controls). The researcher then
compares the groups in terms of past exposures. If a certain exposure is
associated with or caused the disease, a higher proportion of past exposure
among the cases than among the controls would be expected.” Reference
Manual on Scientific Evidence 559 (3d ed. 2011), available at 2011 WL
7724261, *6.
9
In other words, the technique of using a case-control study to analyze
the association between talc use and genital cancer is generally accepted in the
scientific community, even if the results of Dr. Cramer’s specific study are
outliers.
14
and ovarian cancer among non-Jewish serous invasive cases and controls
without a family history of ovarian or early onset breast cancer, stratified by
menopausal status.” Docket 148-1 at 17. This is mostly an attack on the results
and not the methodology, and as a result goes to the weight to be given to the
evidence and not its admissibility. Even if one were to consider defendants’
argument an attack on Dr. Cramer’s methodology, their argument is
unpersuasive. First, although Dr. Cramer’s specific categorization has not been
tested, there is no reason why testing cannot occur using either Dr. Cramer’s
data or alternative data. Second, as discussed above, Dr. Cramer is in the
process of getting his findings published. Third, and perhaps most important,
Dr. Cramer’s categorization was his attempt to connect his research with the
facts of the case. His technique makes sense under the facts of this case
because it shows the odds ratio of a woman in Berg’s position.
Defendants criticize Dr. Cramer’s choice to exclude menopausal, nonJewish women who do not have a history of ovarian or early onset breast
cancer. But as Dr. Cramer explains, this decision was made because Berg is not
Jewish, was premenopausal at the time of her diagnosis, and did not have a
history of ovarian or early onset breast cancer.
Moreover, Dr. Cramer’s categorization is also a recognition of alternative
causes of ovarian cancer. As Dr. Cramer points out in his report, women who
are Jewish or have a history of breast or ovarian cancer are at an increased risk
15
for ovarian cancer. Berg is neither Jewish nor has a history, family or personal,
of breast or ovarian cancer. Additionally, she tested negative for the full panel of
BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations—additional factors that increase one’s risk for
ovarian cancer.
Lastly, defendants argue that Dr. Cramer’s theory of biological
plausibility10 is unreliable, making his ultimate conclusions equally as
unreliable. Dr. Cramer s two models of biological plausibility. One model relies
on the assertion that talc induces inflammation, down regulates immunity, and
enhances ovarian tumor development. The second model theorizes that talc’s
inflammatory properties lead to dysregulation of immunity that would otherwise
help suppress cancerous cells. Defendants assert that neither of these models
has been proven. But defendants have not shown that either model is
undoubtedly incorrect. In epidemiology, the “saliency of [biological plausibility]
varies depending on the extent of scientific knowledge about the cellular and
subcellular mechanisms through which the disease process works.” Reference
Manual on Scientific Evidence 605 (3d ed. 2011), available at 2011 WL
7724261, *30. At times, “mechanism explanations are merely
hypothesized—although hypotheses are sometimes accepted” in showing
10
Biological plausibility is the “[c]onsideration of existing knowledge
about human biology and disease pathology to provide a judgment about the
plausibility that an agent causes a disease.” Reference Manual on Scientific
Evidence 620 (3d ed. 2011), available at 2011 WL 7724261, *38.
16
exposure can cause a disease. Id. Furthermore, Berg’s toxicologist expert,
Dr. Rosenthal, is prepared to offer additional support for Dr. Cramer’s models of
biological plausibility. Thus, Dr. Cramer’s biological plausibility models are not
so fundamentally unsupported that they fail to assist the jury. Sappington, 512
F.3d at 448.
After a careful review of the record, the court concludes that Dr. Cramer’s
expert testimony is reliable. Defendants can certainly attack his testimony at
trial. See Kuhn, 686 F.3d at 625 (“Vigorous cross examination, presentation of
contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the
traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible
evidence.”). But his testimony will not be precluded based on the arguments
that defendants put forward.
II.
Dr. Gary Rosenthal
Dr. Rosenthal is prepared to offer expert testimony on the issue of
“whether talc can be considered an immunotoxic11 agent and the relevance of
this to the biological plausibility of talc as an agent capable of causing ovarian
cancer.” Docket 144-1 at 3. Defendants argue that Dr. Rosenthal is not
qualified to offer his expert opinion and that his opinion is unreliable.12
11
Immunotoxicology is a “branch of toxicology concerned with the effects
of toxic agents on the immune system.” Reference Manual on Scientific
Evidence 682 (3d ed. 2011), available at 2011 WL 7724262, *27.
12
The court assumes, for purposes of this motion, that Dr. Rosenthal’s
testimony is relevant.
17
A.
Qualifications
“A witness can be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training or education, and it is the responsibility of the trial judge to determine
whether a particular expert has sufficient specialized knowledge to assist jurors
in deciding the specific issues in this case.” Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v.
Beelman River Terminals, Inc., 254 F.3d 706, 715 (8th Cir. 2011) (internal
quotations omitted). “The relative skill or knowledge of an expert goes to the
weight of that witness’s testimony, not its admissibility.” Loudermill v. Dow
Chemical Co., 863 F.2d 566, 569 (8th Cir. 1988).
Dr. Rosenthal received his Ph.D. in environmental medicine from New
York University. He has been certified as a toxicologist by the American Board of
Toxicology since 1990. His research includes the study of the toxicity of various
agents on the immune system, including mineral dusts. He has also studied
causative and preventative measures of inflammation and cancer.
Defendants argue that because Dr. Rosenthal has no experience
specifically with talc or ovarian cancer, he is not qualified. Such a narrow view
of an expert’s qualifications is not required under Rule 702. “Rule 702 only
requires that an expert possess knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education sufficient to ‘assist’ the trier of fact, which is satisfied where expert
testimony advances the trier of fact’s understanding to any degree.” Robinson v.
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 447 F.3d 1096, 1100 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations
18
omitted). Dr. Rosenthal has experience studying the toxicity of mineral dust on
the immune system. His expert testimony addresses whether talc can be
considered an immunotoxic agent. Further, Dr. Rosenthal has experience
studying the causative and preventative measures of inflammation and cancer.
His expert testimony also addresses the biological plausibility of talc as an agent
capable of causing ovarian cancer. Thus, the court finds that Dr. Rosenthal’s
qualifications are sufficient to assist the trier of fact in deciding the issues in
this case.
B.
Reliability
Dr. Rosenthal’s expert report offers the following conclusions: (1) talc has
immunotoxic13 potential; (2) it is biologically plausible that talc-mediated
neoplastic events14 can be evoked through various mechanisms; (3) talc can
translocate from the vagina, cervix, or fallopian tube to the ovary; (4) it is
biologically plausible that Berg’s daily talc use for over 30 years led to chronic
inflammation in target tissues; (5) neoplastic events related to chronic
inflammation and/or immune modulation would likely have been elicited in
13
Immunotoxic means that the agent in question exerts toxicity toward
the immune system or its components.
14
A neoplastic event is a pathologic process that results in the formation
and growth of abnormal tissue that grows by cellular proliferation more rapidly
than normal and continues to grow after the stimuli that initiated the new
growth cease. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 1288 (28th ed. 2006).
19
Berg; and (6) the foregoing would have played a role in disease processes leading
to Berg’s ovarian cancer. Docket 144-1 at 11.
Defendants argue that Dr. Rosenthal’s biologically plausible opinions are
merely speculative, untested, and unreliable. An examination of Dr. Rosenthal’s
methods is required to determine whether defendants’ arguments have merit.
In reaching his conclusions, Dr. Rosenthal first addresses talc’s
physicochemical aspects. Docket 144-1 at 5. He asserts that talc’s “poorlysoluble particulate nature” is significant because it allows talc “to be taken up
by cells of the immune system . . . and transported to other parts of the body[.]”
Id. He notes that talc shares this property with “other members of the mineral
dust family, including silicates and asbestos.” Id. He further notes that “an
extensive literature exists showing that similar to asbestos and other mineral
dusts, exposure to talc can result in cellular toxicity.” Id. (citing published
studies).
Dr. Rosenthal next addresses the biological evidence that supports his
conclusions. He first asserts that the immune consequences of talc being “taken
up” by cells “depends on the fate(s) of the cell and the engulfed talc particle.” Id.
at 6. Some fates result in the recruitment of other immune cells (because the
body recognizes talc as a foreign particle) while others lead to an injury that
20
causes unique structures such as Giant cells15 and granulomas.16 Id. (citing
published studies that show Giant cells and granulomas have been seen in
response to talc exposure). Alternatively, the talc particle may be taken up by
cells through the process of endocytosis.17 Any of these “fates” may “play some
part in the response to mineral dust deposition on mucosal surface and would
be associated with measures of inflammation[.]” Id. at 7. Dr. Rosenthal notes
that several “studies show markers of inflammation following talc exposure,
including intravaginal delivery.” Id. (citing several published articles).
To further support his opinions, Dr. Rosenthal discusses studies that
show how talc can affect the immune system. He notes several studies that
show talc induces granulomas in a variety of different organs. He then cites an
animal study that found talc-induced granulomas resulted in deficient cellular
immune functions that “have been noted to precede cancer in man.” Id. at 7.
After discussing additional studies, Dr. Rosenthal generalizes that talc causes
15
Giant cells granuloma is a “nonneoplastic lesion characterized by a
proliferation of granulation tissue containing numerous multinucleated giant
cells[.]” Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 832 (28th ed. 2006).
16
Granuloma is a “[t]erm applied to nodular inflammatory lesions[.]”
Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 831 (28th ed. 2006). “Granuloma formation is a
special type of immune response to foreign agents, where the body produces a
collection of immune and related cells in an attempt to wall off a foreign agent
that has resisted digestion.” Docket 144-1 at 7.
17
Endocytosis is the “[i]nternalization of substances from the
extracellular environment through the formation of vesicles formed from the
plasma membrane.” Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 640 (28th ed. 2006).
21
two biologic responses—immune system suppression and inflammation—both of
which have been found to be associated with cancer. Id. at 8-10. Moreover, he
notes that the “intimate relationship between talc, inflammation, phagocytic
cells,18 and ovary-derived chemotactic factors19 provides a mechanistic
connection for talc translocation to the ovary where it can alter tissue
homeostasis.” Id. at 9.
To summarize, Dr. Rosenthal’s report essentially provides that talc
particles that are applied in the perineal area can move to the ovaries where
they can be problematic for immune cells by causing chronic inflammation
and/or immunity suppression. Chronic inflammation and immunity
suppression have been shown to play roles in disease processes that lead to
cancer. Based on Berg’s thirty-plus years of perineal exposure to talc, it is likely
that she would have experienced such chronic inflammation and/or immunity
suppression in her ovaries, thus playing a “role in disease processes leading to
her ovarian cancer.” Id. at 11. Dr. Rosenthal relied on several published
scientific articles as well as his own experience in immunotoxicology to form his
conclusions.
18
Phagocytic cells are cells that can ingest bacteria, foreign particles, and
other cells. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 1470 (28th ed. 2006).
19
Chemotactic factors are factors that cause movement of cells in
response to chemicals, whereby the cells are attracted or repelled by
substances exhibiting chemical properties. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 358
(28th ed. 2006).
22
Defendants attack Dr. Rosenthal’s opinion from several perspectives.
First, defendants challenge Dr. Rosenthal’s comparison of talc with other
mineral dusts, arguing that he is not qualified to discuss the relevant properties
of the three mineral dusts. The main assertion that Dr. Rosenthal makes,
however, is that talc, asbestos, and silica all have poorly-soluble particulate
natures that encourage uptake by immune cells. It is this property, he opines,
that would cause the three mineral dusts to act similar from an
immunotoxicology perspective. See, e.g., Reference Manual on Scientific
Evidence 664 (3d ed. 2011) (noting toxicologists often compare the structures of
different compounds to infer toxicity). Dr. Rosenthal only relies on one physical
property that the three substances share. Defendants urge the court to require
Dr. Rosenthal to be an expert on all physicochemical properties of each
substance if he is to compare any of them. Such expansive expertise, however,
is not required. If defendants have issue with the factual basis for his
comparisons, they are welcome to challenge it at trial, but such a challenge goes
to the weight to be given to the evidence, not its admissibility. Bonner, 259 F.3d
at 929 (“[T]he factual basis of an expert opinion goes to the credibility of the
testimony, not the admissibility.”).
Second, defendants argue that Dr. Rosenthal’s reference to historic
accounts of asbestos in cosmetic talc is unreliable. Regardless of its reliability,
the court finds this part of Dr. Rosenthal’s opinion to be irrelevant. Berg has not
23
alleged that asbestos was in the talc that allegedly caused her ovarian cancer.
Instead, she argues that the talc itself caused her ovarian cancer. Thus, any
reference to historic accounts of asbestos in cosmetic talc is irrelevant and is
also likely to confuse the jury. As a result, Dr. Rosenthal is precluded from
testifying about historic accounts of asbestos in cosmetic talc.
Third, defendants take issue with Dr. Rosenthal’s assertions relating to
cellular toxicity. The general crux of defendants’ arguments deal with the
factual basis of the opinion and not the methodology. Further, defendants
misinterpret Dr. Rosenthal’s opinion. When disputing Dr. Rosenthal’s claim that
talc causes cellular toxicity, defendants argue that cellular toxicity is a general
term not necessarily related to cancer. Nowhere in Dr. Rosenthal’s expert report
does he make the assertion that all cellular toxicity causes cancer. Thus,
defendants’ argument lacks merit.
Fourth, defendants argue that Dr. Rosenthal’s references to metallic
components in talc make his entire opinion unreliable, noting his deposition
testimony in which he states that the “combination of these compounds
together in the context of talc have not been studied in a detailed way[.]” Docket
144-2 at 14. The court agrees that Dr. Rosenthal’s reference that he “would not
completely dismiss a potential role for contaminating immunotoxic metals” is an
unreliable statement because Dr. Rosenthal did not provide an adequate basis
in science to support it. Nevertheless, this statement is a small part of his
24
report and has little or nothing to do with the rest of his expert opinion. Thus,
his references to metallic components do not make his entire opinion unreliable.
Fifth, defendants attack Dr. Rosenthal’s efforts to show biologic
plausibility. They argue that because Berg’s tissues did not indicate that the
specific mechanisms that Dr. Rosenthal offered were present, his testimony is
irrelevant.20 The court disagrees and finds that Dr. Rosenthal’s offering of
mechanisms that provide biologic plausibility to Berg’s claim that talc caused
her ovarian cancer are relevant.21
Sixth, defendants argue that Dr. Rosenthal’s opinion should be excluded
because of his word choices in his report. The court will not entertain such a
meritless objection.
Defendants’ seventh challenge is similar to its third. They argue that
because one of the mechanisms (TNF-alpha22) that Dr. Rosenthal offers has not
been conclusively proven to cause cancer, it is unreliable. This again misstates
Dr. Rosenthal’s report. The report asserts that talc has been shown to cause
20
Defendants’ argument goes to the sufficiency of specific causation
rather than admissibility. This argument is more properly addressed as part of
the motion for summary judgment.
21
If defendants had conclusive proof that the mechanisms were not
present, then such testimony would likely be irrelevant.
22
TNF-alpha stands for tumor necrosis alpha, which is a pleiotropic
cytokine synthesized widely throughout the female reproductive tract.
Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 698 (28th ed. 2006).
25
inflammation through an increase in TNF-alpha. The report does not state that
TNF-alpha causes cancer—the basis for defendants’ challenge.
Defendants’ eighth challenge attacks the factual basis for Dr. Rosenthal’s
opinion. First, they argue that one of the studies he relied on is a case report.
But their citation to Glastetter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 252 F.3d
986 (8th Cir. 2001), is not dispositive. Glastetter simply states that “causal
attribution based on case studies must be regarded with caution.” 252 F.3d at
990. Here, Dr. Rosenthal is not using case studies as the entire foundation for
his opinions, but just as one piece of the puzzle. Further, defendants argue that
Dr. Rosenthal’s admission that there is a scientific debate about whether talc is
immunosuppresive precludes his testimony. This admission does not make his
opinion unreliable. See Kuhn, 686 F.3d at 625 (“Proponents of expert testimony
need not demonstrate that the assessments of their experts are correct, and
trial courts are not empowered to determine which of several competing
scientific theories has the best provenance.”) (internal quotation omitted).
Defendants’ ninth challenge is not actually a challenge at all. Instead,
defendants simply reference various statements made by Dr. Rosenthal in
relation to Dr. Cramer’s theories.
Tenth, defendants take issue with Dr. Rosenthal’s proffer that the
immunosuppressive effects of asbestos may contribute to malignancy by
decreasing natural killer cells. Dr. Rosenthal offers this statement to support
26
his conclusion that substances that have immunosuppressive effects play a role
in the disease processes leading up to cancer development. He does not assert,
as defendants suggest, that talc exposure decreases natural killer cells. Again,
defendants’ misstatement of Dr. Rosenthal’s opinion makes their objection
meritless.
Defendants’ eleventh challenge shares many of the shortcomings as their
previous challenges. Defendants muddle sufficiency with admissibility, arguing
that Berg’s medical records did not show evidence of inflammation and thus any
theory of inflammation is irrelevant. They challenge the factual basis of
Dr. Rosenthal’s opinion, claiming his interpretation of various animal studies
makes his opinion unreliable. Lastly, they take Dr. Rosenthal’s reluctance to
definitively state that talc exposure causes ovarian cancer to mean that his
opinions are speculative and unreliable. Dr. Rosenthal’s report, however, does
not assert that talc exposure causes ovarian cancer. Instead, Dr. Rosenthal’s
report states that Berg’s talc exposure “would have played a role in disease
processes leading to her ovarian cancer.” Docket 144-1 at 11.
In summary, the court finds that the majority of defendants’ challenges to
Dr. Rosenthal’s expert testimony are unpersuasive. In making his ultimate
conclusions, Dr. Rosenthal relied on his own expertise in the field of toxicology,
his past research, and several other published scientific studies. Any gaps or
limitations in Dr. Rosenthal’s reasoning can be presented to the jury. See Kuhn,
27
686 F.3d at 632 (“The studies’ limitations may be presented to the jury, and [the
expert’s] reliance on the studies may be tested through the traditional means of
cross examination and presentation of contrary evidence.”). Indeed, “[v]igorous
cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on
the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking
shaky but admissible evidence.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596.
III.
Dr. John Godleski
Dr. Godleski reviewed histopathological23 slides taken from Berg following
her diagnosis of ovarian cancer using advanced microscopic methodologies. In
his review of twenty-six slides, Dr. Godleski found three particles of talc. He
asserts that his findings indicate that talc was present in Berg’s ovary tumor.
Dr. Godleski opines that the talc found in Berg’s tissues “is evidence for a
causal link between the presence of talc and the development of [her] ovarian
cancer.” Docket 141-1 at 4.
Defendants argue that Dr. Godleski is unqualified and that his opinions
are irrelevant and unreliable.
A.
Qualifications
Dr. Godleski is the head of Pulmonary Pathology at Brigham and
Women’s Hospital, a major teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. He also
23
Histopathology is the science or study dealing with the cytologic and
histologic structure of abnormal or diseased tissue. Stedman’s Medical
Dictionary 893 (28th ed. 2006).
28
leads a research group at the Harvard School of Public Health. He earned his
medical degree from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine where he
did research using electron microscopy. He has published more than 140
papers related to pulmonary pathology including a number using analytical
electron microscopy. He is a “recognized expert whose opinion is sought by
pathologists from other hospitals in the diagnosis of foreign material in tissues
throughout the body using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive
X-ray analyses.” Docket 141-1 at 2.
Defendants note that Dr. Godleski’s background does not include
determining the causes of ovarian cancer. They argue that Dr. Godleski has
done limited research on the relationship between talc and ovarian cancer, that
his knowledge of the causes of ovarian cancer is limited, and that he is not an
epidemiologist. On the other hand, defendants do not dispute that Dr. Godleski
is an expert at identifying foreign particles in human tissue. Because his
testimony is limited to identifying foreign particles in human tissue, the court
finds he is qualified to offer his expert opinion.
B.
Relevancy
Defendants argue that Dr. Godleski’s opinions are irrelevant because he
cannot tie the talc particles found in Berg’s tissues to defendants’ products.
This argument goes to the sufficiency of the testimony, not the relevancy of it.
Berg claims that talc from defendants’ products caused her ovarian cancer.
29
Certainly, testimony that establishes that talc particles were found in Berg’s
ovary tumor is relevant to this case.
C.
Reliability
Defendants’ reliability arguments are based on a mischaracterization of
Dr. Godleski’s expert opinion. Their arguments suggest that Dr. Godleski is
opining that the talc particles he found caused Berg’s ovarian cancer.
Dr. Godleski’s opinion stops well short of such a conclusion. His report notes
that “the talc found in this case is evidence for a causal link between the
presence of talc and the development of [Berg’s] ovarian cancer.” Docket 141-1
at 4. His opinion merely states the obvious: the talc found in Berg’s tissues is
evidence in this case.
Defendants again argue that Dr. Godleski is required to rule out
alternative causes. Because Dr. Godleski is not opining that talc was the cause
of Berg’s ovarian cancer through a differential diagnosis, he need not rule out
other potential causes of her cancer. The fact that he found particles other than
talc goes to the sufficiency of his testimony. The remainder of defendants’
arguments are based on their mischaracterization of Dr. Godleski’s opinions
and will not be addressed. Therefore, Dr. Godleski’s expert testimony will not be
excluded.
30
IV.
Dr. David R. Lenorovitz and Dr. Edward E. Karnes
Dr. Lenorovitz and Dr. Karnes are prepared to provide expert testimony
“addressing certain forensic human factors and warnings issues.”24 Docket 1463 at 3. Defendants argue that the expert report goes far beyond the boundaries
applicable to human factors experts. In addition, defendants argue that any
proposed testimony that is related to human factors is unreliable.
A.
Qualifications
The court begins its evaluation by addressing the experts’ qualifications.
Dr. Lenorovitz has 44 years of professional experience as a human factors
engineer, ergonomist, and cognitive psychologist. He received his Ph.D. in
human factors engineering from the State University of New York and is
certified as a professional ergonomist by the Board of Certification in
Professional Ergonomics. He has spent the last six years as a forensic human
factors consultant with a special emphasis on warnings systems design,
development, and warnings adequacy evaluation.
Dr. Karnes has 50 years of professional experience as a human factors
professional. He received his Ph.D. in experimental psychology from Temple
University and is board-certified. He has served as a human factors consultant
for plaintiffs and defendants in several different legal cases. The majority of his
24
According to Berg, forensic human factors and warnings is the
“multidisciplinary field examining how humans interact with the world around
them.” Docket 173 at 1.
31
research has concerned the development of warnings and user understanding of
safety issues associated with the use of consumer and industrial products.
Both experts are qualified to render an expert opinion within their field.
B.
Defendants’ Challenges
Defendants first take issue with any attempt by the experts to offer
testimony regarding defendants’ intent as well as testimony regarding
defendants’ purported lobbying efforts. See, e.g., Docket 146-3 at 14 (“The
defendants have knowingly decided to ignore the hazard present in their
products.”); Docket 146-3 at 5 (“The defendants collaborated and joined forces
with other ‘talc-interested parties’ to pool resources and fund . . . programs
intended to . . . defeat any research study[.]”). Both Dr. Karnes and
Dr. Lenorovitz admit that the basis for their opinions about defendants’ intent
and lobbying efforts comes from “reading the documents that were provided.”
Docket 146-2 at 20; 22. “Where the subject matter is within the knowledge or
experience of lay people, expert testimony is superfluous.” Ellis v. Miller Oil
Purchasing Co., 738 F.2d 269, 270 (8th Cir. 1984). There is no reason why the
jury cannot review the same documents and form their own opinions about
defendants’ intent and lobbying efforts. Thus, Drs. Karnes and Lenorovitz are
precluded from offering an expert opinion about defendants’ intent or lobbying
efforts because such testimony would be superfluous.
32
Next, defendants seek to preclude Drs. Karnes and Lenorovitz from
testifying about any legal conclusions, e.g., any duties that defendants owed to
Berg. Under South Dakota law, whether a duty exists is a question of law. Bland
v. Davison Cnty, 507 N.W.2d 80, 81 (S.D. 1993). Any expert testimony on a legal
conclusion will not assist the trier of fact and is thus inadmissible. United States
v. Wells, 63 F.3d 745, 753 (8th Cir. 1995) (“[I]nstruction on the law is the
function of the court, not a defense expert.”), rev’d on other grounds, 519 U.S.
482 (1997); Peterson v. City of Plymouth, 60 F.3d 469, 475 (8th Cir. 1995) (“The
legal conclusions were for the court to make. It was an abuse of discretion to
allow the testimony.”). Thus, Drs. Karnes and Lenorovitz are precluded from
testifying about any duties or responsibilities that defendants allegedly owed to
Berg.
Defendants also move the court to preclude any testimony Drs. Karnes
and Lenorovitz may offer that is outside their expertise, such as the medical
risks of ovarian cancer, whether talc is hazardous, and whether there is a
feasible alternative product. “An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in
the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed.” Fed.
R. Evid. 702. Thus, Drs. Karnes and Lenorovitz can form their opinions based
on the testimony of other experts in this case. But Drs. Karnes and Lenorovitz
cannot make unsupported statements that are outside of their field of expertise.
See Anderson v. Raymond Corp., 340 F.3d 520, 523 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that
33
the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that an expert could
not testify about matters outside of his expertise). In addition, the court need
not admit cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Any detailed description of
testimony provided by Berg’s other experts regarding the medical risks of
ovarian cancer, whether talc is hazardous, and whether there is a feasible
alternative product would certainly be cumulative because Drs. Karnes and
Lenorovitz are not capable of offering their novel opinions in such areas as they
are not qualified to do so. Therefore, the testimony of Drs. Karnes and
Lenorovitz regarding these areas must be limited. For purposes of their
testimony, Drs. Karnes and Lenorovitz may only “assume” that ovarian cancer
has medical risks, talc is hazardous, and there is a feasible alternative
product.25 They cannot, however, go into detail on any of these subjects.
More generally, Berg asserts that Drs. Karnes and Lenorovitz were
designated (1) to ascertain if talc posed a hazard to the populace; (2) to
determine whether the hazard was open and obvious to a reasonable user; (3) to
determine if there was a feasible way to place a warning on the talc product;
and (4) to determine if there was a financially and technically reasonable
alternative to talc. Docket 173 at 2. As discussed above, Drs. Karnes and
25
This assumes that plaintiff will present evidence that there is a feasible
alternative product.
34
Lenorovitz are not qualified to provide an opinion on whether talc is hazardous
to the populace or whether there is a financially reasonable alternative to talc.
Moreover, Drs. Karnes and Lenorovitz cannot assist the jury on the issue
of whether the alleged hazard was open and obvious to a reasonable user. The
basis for Drs. Karnes and Lenorovitz concluding that the alleged hazard was not
open and obvious is based solely on the fact that Berg, Dr. Karnes, and
Dr. Lenorovitz were not aware of the hazard prior to this litigation. A jury can
rely on its own common sense and experiences in forming its conclusion on
whether the alleged hazard was open and obvious.
Therefore, the testimony of Drs. Karnes and Lenorovitz will be limited to
whether there was a feasible way to place a warning on defendants’ products.26
The court will now turn to defendants’ summary judgment motion.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant “shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party can meet this
burden by presenting evidence that there is no dispute of material fact or that
the nonmoving party has not presented evidence to support an element of her
26
After reviewing the remainder of the report in light of the extensive
limitations discussed above, the court finds that any additional proposed
testimony outside of the issue of placing a warning on the product is not
admissible because it is either cumulative or outside the expertise of
Drs. Karnes and Lenorovitz.
35
case on which she bears the ultimate burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). “The nonmoving party may not ‘rest on mere
allegations or denials, but must demonstrate on the record the existence of
specific facts which create a genuine issue for trial.’ ” Mosley v. City of
Northwoods, Mo., 415 F.3d 908, 910 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Krenik v. County of
Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995)).
Summary judgment is precluded if there is a dispute in facts that could
affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
248 (1986). For purposes of a summary judgment motion, the court views the
facts and the inferences drawn from such facts “in the light most favorable to
the party opposing the motion.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986).
Because this is a diversity action, the court applies the law of the state in
which it sits. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Kamrath, 475 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir.
2007). Thus, South Dakota law applies to Berg’s claims.27
ANALYSIS
Defendants move for summary judgment on three grounds: (1) Berg’s
experts do not present admissible evidence of causation and have failed to rule
out other potential causes; (2) there is no evidence that would impose upon
27
The parties do not dispute that South Dakota law applies.
36
defendants a duty to warn; and (3) Berg cannot demonstrate that defendants’
failure to warn caused her ovarian cancer.
I.
Evidence of Causation
Defendants argue that Berg has not presented admissible evidence of
causation and thus all of her claims must fail. To survive summary judgment,
Berg must present evidence beyond unsupported conclusions and speculative
statements that defendants’ products caused her injuries. Burley v. Kytec
Innovative Sports Equip., Inc., 737 N.W.2d 397, 407-10 (S.D. 2007). Expert
testimony is ordinarily required to establish causation in a products liability
action, particularly in a toxic tort action. Id.; see also Junk v. Terminix Int’l Co.,
628 F.3d 439, 450 (8th Cir. 2010) (“To succeed in her claims, [plaintiff] needed
to present expert testimony showing that the [substance] could have caused
[the] injuries and that it did in fact cause those injuries.”).
The majority of defendants’ arguments rely on the assumption that the
court would grant their motions to exclude expert testimony analyzed above.
But because the court found that the majority of the expert testimony offered by
Berg is admissible, most of defendants’ arguments are moot. The court will
nonetheless evaluate the admissible evidence that Berg has put forth to ensure
that she has met her burden of creating a genuine issue of fact on the causation
element.
37
As a preliminary matter, Berg asserts, and defendants do not dispute,
that she began using talc in her genital area in 1975. She claims that the talc
came from defendants’ products—“Johnson’s Baby Powder” and “Shower to
Shower”—and that her use continued until 2007. It is undisputed that Berg was
diagnosed with ovarian cancer in December of 2006.
Berg has put forth admissible expert testimony to support her claim that
defendants’ products caused her ovarian cancer. First, Dr. Cramer, an
epidemiologist, opines generally that talc use in the genital area has a strong
causal association with ovarian cancer. See Glastetter, 252 F.3d at 992 (noting
that epidemiological evidence can assist in establishing causation). He goes
further to opine that Berg’s frequent application of talc to her genital area was
“the major cause of her invasive serous ovarian cancer[.]” Docket 148-1 at 18.
In forming his opinions, Dr. Cramer relied on various facts: Berg was premenopausal when she was diagnosed; she has no personal or family history of
breast or ovarian cancer; she is not Jewish; she tested negative for the full
panel of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations; and the odds ratio for someone with
similar characteristics is 3.53.
Second, Dr. Rosenthal, a toxicologist, provides biologic plausibility to
Dr. Cramer’s opinions. See Marmo, 457 F.3d at 758 (“[A] toxicologist may testify
that exposure to a chemical caused a person’s symptoms and injuries.”). He
asserts that talc has immunotoxic potential and can evoke neoplastic events,
38
which may lead to ovarian cancer. Further, he claims that it is biologically
plausible that Berg’s frequent application of talc led to chronic inflammation
and/or immune modulation of tissues and cells in her ovaries. Thus, he
concludes that Berg’s frequent genital application of talc “played a role in
disease processes leading to her ovarian cancer.” Docket 144-1 at 11.
Third, Dr. Godleski, an expert in microscopy, provides evidence that talc
was actually present in the tissues that were removed from Berg’s ovaries and
fallopian tubes following her diagnosis. Lastly, Berg claims that had she known
of any dangers involved in applying talc to her genital area, she would not have
done so.
Defendants urge the court to grant summary judgment because Berg has
not ruled out other potential causes of her ovarian cancer. But Berg is not
required to “eliminate all other possible explanations of causation[.]” Burley,
737 N.W.2d at 407. She needs only to “set forth sufficient evidence establishing
a causal connection between the [defendants’ product] and the resulting injury.”
Id. The court finds that she has done so here. Determining the weight of the
evidence Berg has put forth is an issue for the jury.
II.
Duty to Warn
Defendants argue that Berg cannot move forward with her failure to warn
claims because she has not established the existence of a duty to warn. The
39
court must separate Berg’s failure to warn claims to address defendants’
argument.
A.
Strict Liability Failure to Warn
Defendants argue that they did not owe Berg a duty to warn because their
product is not dangerous. “The issue under strict liability is whether the
manufacturer’s failure to adequately warn rendered the product unreasonably
dangerous without regard to the reasonableness of the failure to warn judged by
negligence standards.” Peterson v. Safway Steel Scaffolds Co., 400 N.W.2d 909,
912 (S.D. 1987). “[K]nowledge of the potential risk is imputed to the
manufacturer.” Id. Thus, defendants cannot defend “on grounds that, at the
time of production, [they] neither knew nor could have known of the risk.” Id.
Thus, if Berg can establish at trial that a “danger existed associated with a
foreseeable use of [defendants’] product,” the duty to warn element is
automatically satisfied for purposes of her strict liability failure to warn claim.
Burley, 737 N.W.2d at 409.
B.
Negligent Failure to Warn
To establish liability for negligent failure to warn, Berg must show, among
other things, that defendants “knew or reasonably should have known that the
product was dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used in a
reasonably foreseeable manner.” Id. at 410. Defendants argue that there was
and still is no duty to warn because there lacks any substantial evidence that
40
their products are dangerous. Additionally, defendants argue that any evidence
that Berg puts forth that allegedly shows dangers associated with defendants’
products falls short of creating a duty to warn.
Defendants’ arguments are premature at this time. Defendants are
correct in stating that under South Dakota law “the existence of a duty is a
question of law to be determined by the court.” Janis v. Nash Finch Co., 780
N.W.2d 497, 500 (S.D. 2010). But in a negligent failure to warn case, whether
defendants owed Berg a duty to warn depends, first, on whether defendants’
products are unreasonably dangerous. See Burley, 737 N.W.2d at 410 (requiring
plaintiff to show that the “manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known
that the product was dangerous”). Indeed, if defendants’ products are not
dangerous, no warning would be necessary. Whether defendants’ products are
unreasonably dangerous is a factual determination for the jury. See Peterson,
400 N.W.2d at 914 (“[I]ssues of reasonableness and foreseeability . . . are
usually jury issues.”). Thus, the court cannot make its legal determination of
whether a duty existed until the jury has the opportunity to determine if the
products are dangerous. See Reiss v. Komatsu America Corp., 735 F. Supp. 2d
1125, 1146 (D.N.D. 2010) (“The existence of a duty to warn is generally a
preliminary question of law for the court, but if the existence of a duty depends
41
upon factual determinations, their resolution must be resolved by the trier of
fact.”).28
III.
Proximate Cause
Defendants also argue that Berg has failed to put forth sufficient facts to
show that defendants’ failure to warn was the legal cause of her ovarian cancer.
Defendants’ argument raises the issue of when the duty to warn arose. They
claim that even if a duty to warn exists, such duty arose much later than
1975—the year Berg began dusting her perineum with talc. Thus, defendants
argue, Berg cannot prove that defendants’ failure to warn was the legal cause of
her cancer because the duty did not arise in time to prevent her cancer.
As discussed above, Berg’s strict liability claim does not necessitate the
finding that a duty existed. Moreover, the issue of whether a duty ever existed
must first be determined in order to ascertain when such a duty arose. Even so,
Berg has put forth evidence that defendants were aware of the alleged dangers
of talc as early as 1971. Thus, there is a material issue of fact as to whether
defendants “knew or reasonably should have known that the product was
dangerous” as far back as 1971. See Burley, 737 N.W.2d at 410.
28
Defendants’ reliance on Brech v. J.C. Penney Co., 698 F.2d 332, 334
(8th Cir. 1983), in support of their assertion that federal standards are relevant
in determining if a duty to warn existed is misplaced. In review of District
Court Judge Nichol’s factual findings from a bench trial, the Eighth Circuit
stated that “[a]lthough evidence that the gown surpassed federal standards is
not necessarily conclusive proof that the garment was not unreasonably
dangerous, it is nevertheless evidence which the court can consider on the
issue.” Id. (emphasis added).
42
In summary, Berg has put forth sufficient, admissible evidence to show
that there exists genuine issues of material fact. Also, the court is unable to
determine whether defendants owed Berg a duty to warn at this time. Thus,
defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied.
CONCLUSION
Dr. Cramer’s expert opinion is admissible because it was the product of
reliable methodologies, and he was not required, as an epidemiologist, to rule
out all alternative causes of Berg’s ovarian cancer. The majority of
Dr. Rosenthal’s opinions are admissible because he is qualified to render such
opinions, and he used reliable methodologies in forming his opinions.
Dr. Godleski’s opinion is admissible because he is qualified, and the opinion is
relevant and stems from reliable methodologies. Lastly, Dr. Lenorovitz and
Dr. Karnes, as human factors experts, can only testify on the limited issue of
whether there was a feasible way to place a warning on defendants’ products.
Moreover, Berg has put forth sufficient evidence to show that there exists
genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment. Furthermore,
the court is unable to determine whether defendants owed Berg a duty to warn
at this time. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of
Dr. Godleski (Dockets 140 & 153) is denied.
43
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to exclude the
testimony of Dr. Rosenthal (Dockets 143 & 156) is granted in part and denied in
part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to exclude the
testimony of Dr. Lenorovitz and Dr. Karnes (Dockets 145 & 155) is granted in
part and denied in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to exclude the
testimony of Dr. Cramer (Docket 147 & 151) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Docket 149) is denied.
Dated April 12, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
44
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?