Summary
affirming exclusion of evidence under Daubert when plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that proffered expert testimony had a valid scientific foundation, "because it was not based on accepted scientific methodology for determining whether a chemical agent can cause birth defects in humans"
Summary of this case from Glastetter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.Opinion
No. 97-1755
Submitted December 11, 1997
Decided January 22, 1998
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Bobby Davidson, Little Rock, AR. Additional attorneys appearing on the brief were Bernard Whetstone, Kevin Odum and Robert C. Compton.
Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Robert D. MacGill, Indianapolis, IN for appellees Dow Chemical, Rofan Services, Inc. Epco, Inc. Additional attorneys appearing on the brief were Joseph G. Eaton, Stanley C. Fickle and William E. padgett of Indianapolis, IN. Also appearing on the brief were Sammye L. Taylor and Troy A. Price of Little Rock, AR. Counsel who presented argument on behalf of appellee Steam Services, Inc. was Michael J. Emerson, Little Rock, AR. Appearing on that brief was Robert L. Henry, III.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Before FAGG, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Ashley Smits was born with severe birth defects. During her pregnancy, Ashley's mother had been exposed to Dursban LO (a pesticide) and Firefog 404 (a reoderant). Plaintiffs filed suit against various defendants contending that these chemical agents, either singly or in combination, were the cause of Ashley's abnormalities. Plaintiffs retained experts who were willing to testify that the mother's exposure to Dursban LO and Firefog 404 proximately caused Ashley's birth defects. After extensive discovery, depositions, numerous court hearings, including two full days of testimony, the district court ruled that the testimony of plaintiffs' experts was not admissible as scientific evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703. Specifically, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that the proffered testimony had a valid scientific foundation, as required by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), because it was not based on accepted scientific methodology for determining whether a chemical agent can cause birth defects in humans. The district court granted summary judgement for all defendants.
The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Although we may not agree with the district court's analysis of Daubert in every detail, we find no abuse of discretion. See General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 66 U.S.L.W. 4036 (U.S. Dec. 15, 1997) (No. 96-188). Given the complete analysis of the facts and the law by the district court, precedent of this circuit would not be substantially advanced by a detailed opinion by the court. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. The decision of the district court is affirmed.