Eleventh Circuit Rejects Expert Testimony, Affirms Dismissal of Suit Against Fertilizer Plant

Beveridge & Diamond PC

Highlighting the importance of strong expert testimony, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed exclusion of an expert’s testimony where—among other defects—the expert (1) failed to properly assess dose-response, (2) failed to meaningfully rule out alternative causes, and (3) failed to account for background risk.  See Williams v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, 889 F.3d 1239, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2018).

Plaintiff alleged that her pulmonary disease, pulmonary hypertension, allergic reactions, diabetes, and other health conditions were caused or exacerbated by chemicals, dust, and other emissions from a fertilizer plant located three miles from plaintiff’s home.  Mosaic moved to exclude plaintiff’s causation expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert and then moved for summary judgment.  Without holding a Daubert hearing, the trial court excluded the testimony and granted Mosaic summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed.  

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.  First, the court found that plaintiff’s expert never conducted an independent dose response specific to plaintiff, instead relying solely on regulatory standards like EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards.  The court chided that it had previously explained the “methodological perils of relying, at face value, on regulatory emissions levels to establish causation.”  Namely, regulatory standards are often prophylactic, whereas dose-response calculations identify the exposure levels that actually cause harm.  Second, plaintiff’s expert “failed to meaningfully rule out other potential causes” of plaintiff’s conditions and symptoms.  “Indeed, one of the studies heavily relied upon by [plaintiff’s expert] determined that environmental factors and emissions by other facilities caused the vast majority of pollution in the area in which [plaintiff] lived.”  Third, plaintiff’s expert failed altogether to address background risk in his report or elsewhere.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Beveridge & Diamond PC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Beveridge & Diamond PC

Beveridge & Diamond PC on:

Reporters on Deadline

Related Case Law

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.