Here is another guest post by Reed Smith‘s Kevin Hara examining the exclusion of a couple of slapdash expert witnesses, and the resultant grant of summary judgment. Since it is summer time, it is only fitting that he does so using baseball analogies. As always, our guest posters deserve 100% of the credit (and
Here’s a shocker: being a tv star doctor does not make one a viable expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. That’s not just our say-so (or ipse dixit). One of our reliance materials is Thelen v. Somatics, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101970 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2023). The plaintiff in that case
A little while ago, Bexis attended a Lawyers for Civil Justice semi-annual meeting, at which he received that organization’s “Outstanding Contributor Award” (in full disclosure, so did a half dozen other members). With the soon-to-be-adopted amendments to Fed. R. Evid. 702 having now been approved by the Supreme Court (with only the unlikely step of a congressional veto remaining), the question was what happens next.
These amendments expressly enshrine the expert “gatekeeper” function in the text of Rule 702. The next step is whether they can be duplicated – or paralleled − in state rules of evidence. We think that they can, and for a state (like Pennsylvania and a number of others) that still follows the “Frye” standard looking to the “general acceptance” of expert testimony as the touchstone to admissibility, a Rule 702 state-law equivalent might look something like this:
Just last week we updated our discussion on the 2023 amendments to Rule 702 urging our readers to start using the amendments now before their official implementation in December. That’s because the Report of the Rules Advisory Committee confirms that the change to Rule 702 is to correct the mistakes of those courts who have
What follows is from the non-Dechert side of the Blog.
In the Zantac MDL, the plaintiffs’ causation problems were plainly visible on the horizon, as we mentioned in our post last year about the Zantac ruling on medical monitoring, In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, 546 F. Supp.3d 1152 (S.D. Fla. 2021). The Zantac MDL plaintiffs’ claims regarding risk of injury and exposure levels to purported ranitidine-derived nitrosamines (“NDMA” for short) seemed not only trivial, but in many ways bizarre (use of extreme temperatures and other parameters). They even relied on a retracted study. That’s why we referred to the “wheels coming off” the plaintiffs’ scientific case in that post.
Now the plaintiffs’ wheels are fully off in Zantac MDL – as we mentioned before, all of their causation experts for the five types of cancer that plaintiffs themselves considered the most plausible have been excluded under F.R. Evid. 702, and summary judgment entered. In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2022 WL 17480906 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2022). This is a lengthy opinion, 341 pages in slip form. To keep this post as short as possible, we’ll be summarizing (at best) large parts of it.
Continue Reading Zantac Chronicles – Concluding Chapters in the MDL
In a 341-page opinion, In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, 9:20-md-02924-RLR, slip op. (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2022), the MDL court held that all of the Zantac plaintiffs’ general causation experts (concerning five cancer types) failed to meet the admissibility standards of Fed. R. Evid. 702. Consequently the court granted the defendants’ motions
Three years ago we published a lengthy post, “Stupid Expert Tricks,” detailing several of the other side’s egregious attempts at passing off junk science “experts” as the real thing, along with our side’s trials and tribulations during the course of unmasking these phonies. Our rogues’ gallery contained: In In re Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability Litigation, 392 F. Supp.3d 179, 181-87 (D. Mass. 2019) (Zambelli-Weiner); In re 3M Bair Hugger Litigation, 924 N.W.2d 16, 19 (Minn. App. 2019) (Augustine); In re Mirena IUD Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability Litigation (No. II), 341 F. Supp.3d 213, 222-23, 229-32 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (Etminan); Gerke v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Co., 289 F.R.D. 316, 328-29 (D. Or. 2013) (Painter); McClellan v. I-Flow Corp., 710 F. Supp.2d 1092, 1119-25 (D. Or. 2010) (Matsen); Nelson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., 1998 WL 1297690, at *4, 7-8 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 31, 1998), aff’d, 243 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2001) (Kilburn); and Wade-Greaux v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1441, 1559-62 (D.V.I. 1994), aff’d mem., 46 F.3d 1120 (3d Cir. 1994) (Gilbert).
We’ve found another one – this time from talc litigation.
We write on the heels of a long weekend layered with dogs and fun. The National Dog Show, which you may have watched on TV yesterday, is held about ten minutes from our house, and a fabulous corded Standard Poodle named Joel, who just happens to be “family” (he is the sire of our gorgeous puppy, Luca) won Best of Opposite Sex two days running (and stayed overnight with us). And two out-of-town handlers we know unexpectedly needed a place to exercise their charges, so we twice got to stand in our back yard while no fewer than seven show dogs, from ten pounds to 150 pounds, swirled around us. We can’t imagine being much happier.
Layers of good mark today’s case, as well. Arevalo v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, et al., 2022 WL 16753646 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2022), is a decision on the appeal of a Northern District of Florida decision we liked very much. Arevalo is a pelvic mesh case. The plaintiff alleged that mesh devices implanted to treat her stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse caused her to undergo mesh removal surgery and to suffer a familiar litany of injuries. The plaintiff’s general and specific causation expert was the ubiquitous Dr. Bruce Rosenzweig. Among numerous other motions, the defendant moved to exclude Dr. Rosenzweig’s specific causation opinion as unreliable because Dr. Rosenzweig did not perform an adequate differential diagnosis. The court granted the motion and excluded the specific causation opinions, holding that Dr. Rosenzweig “did not explain how he systematically and scientifically ruled out the other potential causes for the plaintiff’s symptoms. Arevalo, 2022 WL 1673646 at *4. The court then granted summary judgment for the defendant because the plaintiff could not reach the jury without expert specific causation testimony. The plaintiff appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and today’s decision is the result.
We confess: we spend much too much time on a prominent social media platform. We post way too many pictures of the Drug and Device Little Rescue Dogs. We follow the progress of our impending addition, a Standard Poodle show puppy, currently in utero. We engage in pointless, angry, political debate. And we look at
On this gorgeous late-spring Philadelphia day, we are excited about a couple of things. The Drug and Device Law Dowager Countess is home, after an improbable recovery from a horrific fall. We just learned that the Colorado Symphony is resurrecting an (also improbably) cool tribute to John Denver we saw a few years ago, featuring
