Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
-
Upload
scribd-government-docs -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
1/32
United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit
No. 13- 2132
BRI AN MI LWARD and LI NDA J . MI LWARD,
Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,
v.
RUST- OLEUM CORPORATI ON,
Def endant , Appel l ee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[ Hon. Dougl as P. Woodl ock, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]
Bef ore
Howar d, Chi ef J udge,Thompson, Ci r cui t J udge,and Lapl ant e, * Di str i ct J udge.
St eve Baughman J ensen, wi t h whom Al l en St ewar t , P. C. , I anMcCal l i st er , and Kr ei ndl er & Kr ei ndl er , LLP, wer e on br i ef , f orappel l ant s.
Franci s M. Lynch, wi t h whom Cet r ul o LLP, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.
Apr i l 25, 2016
* Of t he Di st r i ct of New Hampshi r e, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
2/32
- 2 -
HOWARD, Chief Judge. I n t hi s t oxi c t or t case, we
pr evi ousl y consi der ed t he admi ssi bi l i t y of t est i mony f r om t he
pl ai nt i f f s' gener al causat i on exper t . At i ssue i n t he pr esent
appeal i s whet her t he di st r i ct cour t abused i t s di scret i on i n
excl udi ng t he t est i mony of t he pl ai nt i f f s' speci f i c causat i on
exper t . We concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng was a
suppor t abl e exer ci se of i t s di scret i on, and we t her ef or e af f i r m
t he gr ant of summary j udgment t o t he def endant f ol l owi ng t hat
evi dent i ar y r ul i ng.
I.
Background
Br i an Mi l war d wor ked as a pi pef i t t er and r ef r i ger at or
t echni ci an f or over t hi r t y year s. Dur i ng t he cour se of hi s
empl oyment , Mi l ward was exposed t o var yi ng l evel s of benzene f r om
pai nt s and ot her pr oduct s manuf act ur ed by ( among others) Rust -
Ol eum Cor por at i on. I n 2004, he was di agnosed wi t h Acut e
Promyel ocyt i c Leukemi a ( "APL") . Thr ee years l at er , Mi l war d and
hi s spouse sued a number of def endant s on t he theor y t hat t hei r
negl i gence caused Mi l war d' s di sease. The onl y r emai ni ng def endant
i s Rust - Ol eum.
To succeed agai nst Rust - Ol eum, t he Mi l war ds had t he
bur den of est abl i shi ng, t hr ough exper t t est i mony, gener al and
speci f i c causat i on. I n ot her wor ds, t hey needed t o show t hat
exposur e to benzene can cause APL ( general causat i on) , and t hat
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
3/32
- 3 -
exposur e t o benzene was, i n f act , a subst ant i al f act or i n t he
devel opment of Br i an' s APL ( speci f i c causat i on) . The di st r i ct
cour t bi f ur cat ed t he pr oceedi ngs; i t pl anned f i r st t o addr ess t he
admi ssi bi l i t y of exper t t est i mony on gener al causat i on, and t hen
t o consi der t he speci f i c causat i on i ssue.
I n a 2009 r ul i ng, t he di st r i ct cour t excl uded t he
Mi l war ds' gener al causat i on exper t . Accor di ngl y, i t ent er ed
j udgment i n f avor of t he def endant s wi t hout proceedi ng t o t he
second phase of t he case. The Mi l wards appeal ed t hat deci si on
and, f or r easons speci f i c t o t hei r gener al causat i on exper t , we
r ever sed. See Mi l war d v. Acui t y Speci al t y Pr ods. Gr p. , I nc. , 639
F. 3d 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . We r emanded t he case t o t he di st r i ct
cour t t o pr oceed t o t he speci f i c causat i on quest i on.
Under t he super vi si on of a di f f er ent di st r i ct cour t
j udge, t he par t i es engaged i n di scover y on t he subj ect of speci f i c
causat i on. Rel evant her e, t he Mi l war ds r et ai ned occupat i onal
medi ci ne physi ci an Dr . Shei l a But l er t o ser ve as t hei r exper t
wi t ness. 1 The admi ssi bi l i t y of her opi ni on t est i mony i s at t he
1 The Mi l war ds al so engaged i ndust r i al hygi eni st Dr . J amesSt ewar t . Dr . St ewar t eval uat ed Br i an Mi l war d' s exposure t o benzeneat var i ous poi nt s i n hi s car eer and cal cul at ed t he benzene l evel si n var i ous pr oduct s t hat he used. Based on t hose consi der at i ons,Dr . St ewar t est i mated t hat Mi l ward was exposed t o benzene at al evel of 25. 6 par t s per mi l l i on- year s ( t he measur ement of t heamount of benzene equi val ent t o what a person woul d breat he onaver age each day of t he year a per son spent at wor k) . The di st r i ctcour t f ound Dr . St ewar t ' s t est i mony t o be admi ssi bl e, and Rust -
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
4/32
- 4 -
hear t of t hi s appeal , and t hus addi t i onal backgr ound on her opi ni on
i s i n order .
Dr. Butler
Dr . But l er , an empl oyee of t he Vet er ans Admi ni st r at i on,
speci al i zes i n cl i ni cal assessment s of envi r onment al and
occupat i onal exposur e i n combat - exposed vet erans. I n her pr oposed
t est i mony, Dr . But l er pr esent ed t hr ee t heor i es.
Fi r st , she t est i f i ed t hat al t hough benzene i s nat ur al l y
occur r i ng, t her e i s no saf e l evel of benzene exposur e. Thi s was
her pr edomi nant t heor y, and she consi st ent l y rei t er at ed her
hypothesi s. She emphasi zed t hat she r eached t hi s concl usi on by
exami ni ng " t he bi ol ogy, t he pat hophysi ol ogy, what t he subst ance
does t o t he person and t he di sease pr ocess . " And, she noted, she
was abl e t o do so wi t hout r el yi ng on any of t he r el evant
epi demi ol ogi cal st udi es. Gi ven t hi s no- saf e l evel t heor y, Dr .
But l er mai nt ai ned t hat Mi l war d' s exposur e ( as det ai l ed by Dr .
St ewar t ) was l i kel y t he cause of hi s APL. The di st r i ct cour t
r ej ect ed t hi s hypot hesi s because i t coul d not be pr oper l y t est ed
wi t h any known r at e of er r or . The Mi l war ds do not meani ngf ul l y
chal l enge t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on on appeal . Accor di ngl y,
we assume that t he rul i ng was cor r ect and bypass f ur t her di scussi on
Ol eum now ar gues t hat t hi s deci si on was er r oneous. Gi ven ourdi sposi t i on of t he case, we do not r each t hi s argument .
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
5/32
- 5 -
of t he i ssue. See Mi l l s v. U. S. Bank, NA, 753 F. 3d 47, 55 ( 1st
Ci r . 2014) .
Second, Dr . But l er r at her cur sor i l y concl uded t hat even
beyond t he no- saf e l evel hypot hesi s, cer t ai n epi demi ol ogi cal
st udi es have est abl i shed t hat an i ndi vi dual ' s "r el at i ve r i sk" of
devel opi ng APL i ncr eases when exposed t o speci f i ed amount s of
benzene. She t hen compared Mi l ward' s exposur e l evel s t o t hose
t hat had been f ound t o be dangerous i n t hat r esear ch. Si nce
Mi l ward' s exposure was hi gher t han t he amount s f ound t o be
hazardous, Dr . But l er r easoned t hat benzene exposure was l i kel y
t he cause of hi s APL. Not abl y, she di d not expl ai n why she chose
t he st udi es on whi ch she r el i ed, nor di d she addr ess any st udy
wi t h cont r ar y f i ndi ngs. I n f act, dur i ng Dr . But l er ' s deposi t i on,
def endant ' s counsel asked her a number of quest i ons about her
abi l i t y and wi l l i ngness t o engage wi t h t he r el evant
epi demi ol ogi cal r esear ch. For i nst ance, counsel asked, "Ar e you
awar e of any st udi es whi ch f i nd t hat t her e i s no r el at i onshi p
bet ween benzene exposur e and APL, " t o whi ch she answered "Yes . .
. t he l i t er at ur e [ ] has suppor t f or bot h. " Counsel t hen asked,
"Do you i nt end i n t hi s case t o wei gh t he di f f er ent epi demi ol ogi cal
st udi es and of f er an opi ni on as t o whi ch ones we shoul d r el y on
and whi ch ones we shoul d di scount , " t o whi ch she r epl i ed, "No. "
Fi nal l y, Dr . But l er engaged i n a "di f f er ent i al
di agnosi s" t o concl ude t hat benzene exposure l i kel y caused
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
6/32
- 6 -
Mi l war d' s APL. Thr ough t hi s met hod ( essent i al l y a pr ocess of
el i mi nat i on) Dr . But l er " r ul ed out " some of t he mor e common f act or s
associ ated wi t h APL, among t hem obesi t y and smoki ng. She t hen
determi ned t hat si nce benzene exposur e was a potent i al cause, she
coul d al so "r ul e out " an i di opat hi c di agnosi s ( or , a di agnosi s
wi t hout a known cause) . Thus, si nce benzene exposure was the onl y
si gni f i cant pot ent i al cause r emai ni ng, she concl uded t hat i t was
l i kel y t he cul pr i t .
Procedural History
Back i n cour t , Rust - Ol eum moved bot h t o excl ude Dr .
But l er ' s t est i mony and f or summar y j udgment . The di st r i ct cour t
eval uat ed, and r ej ect ed, each of t he t heor i es t hat Dr . But l er put
f or war d t o est abl i sh speci f i c causat i on. For r easons di scussed
bel ow, t he j udge ul t i mat el y rul ed t hat Dr . But l er ' s t est i mony was
i nadmi ssi bl e under Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 702. Si nce t he
Mi l war ds coul d not est abl i sh speci f i c causat i on wi t hout Dr .
But l er ' s t est i mony, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed summar y j udgment i n
f avor of Rust - Ol eum. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56. Thi s t i mel y appeal
f ol l owed.
II.
We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o admi t or
excl ude exper t t est i mony f or abuse of di scr et i on. See Uni t ed
St at es v. Shay, 57 F. 3d 126, 132 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( not i ng t hat we
wi l l onl y "r ever se a deci si on . . . i f ( 1) t he di st r i ct cour t based
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
7/32
- 7 -
t he deci si on on an i ncor r ect l egal st andar d . . . or ( 2) we have
a def i ni t e and f i r m convi ct i on t hat t he cour t made a cl ear er r or
of j udgment . . . . ") . Pr edi cat e f actual f i ndi ngs ar e r evi ewed f or
cl ear er r or , whi l e pur e quest i ons of l aw engender de novo r evi ew.
Mi l war d, 639 F. 3d at 13- 14. As f or t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ul t i mat e
deci si on t o gr ant Rust - Ol eum summar y j udgment , because t he
Mi l war ds ar e pr oceedi ng under st at e- l aw t heor i es of l i abi l i t y, we
appl y Massachuset t s l aw, see Phi l i bot t e v. Ni sour ce Cor p. Ser vs.
Co. , 793 F. 3d 159, 165 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) , and r evi ew t he deci si on de
novo, see Samaan v. St . J oseph Hosp. , 670 F. 3d 21, 38 ( 1st Ci r .
2012) .
As i n t he di str i ct cour t , our admi ssi bi l i t y i nqui r y i s
gui ded by Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 702, whi ch pr ovi des t hat :
A wi t ness who i s qual i f i ed as an exper t byknowl edge, ski l l , exper i ence, t r ai ni ng, or
educat i on may t est i f y i n t he f or m of anopi ni on or ot her wi se i f :
( a) t he exper t ' s sci ent i f i c, t echni cal , orot her speci al i zed knowl edge wi l l hel p t het r i er of f act t o under st and t he evi dence or t odet er mi ne a f act i n i ssue;( b) t he t est i mony i s based on suf f i ci ent f act sor dat a;( c) t he t est i mony i s t he pr oduct of r el i abl epr i nci pl es and methods; and
( d) t he exper t has r el i abl y appl i ed t hepr i nci pl es and met hods t o t he f act s of t hecase.
Fed. R. Evi d. 702. I n appl yi ng Rul e 702, t he di st r i ct cour t ser ves
as t he gat ekeeper f or exper t t est i mony by "ensur i ng t hat [ i t ] . .
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
8/32
- 8 -
. bot h r est s on a r el i abl e f oundat i on and i s r el evant t o t he t ask
at hand. " Daubert v. Merr el l Dow Pharm. , 509 U. S. 579, 597 ( 1993) .
The par t y seeki ng t o i nt r oduce t he evi dence has t he bur den of
est abl i shi ng bot h i t s r el i abi l i t y and i t s r el evance. See i d. at
593 n. 10; see al so Fed. R. Evi d. 702, advi sory commi t t ee' s not e.
As not ed above, t he di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed each t heor y
t hat Dr . But l er put f or war d t o est abl i sh speci f i c causat i on. We
now f ocus on the t wo t heor i es t hat t he Mi l war ds pr ess on appeal :
Dr . But l er ' s r el at i ve r i sk concl usi on and her di f f er ent i al
di agnosi s. 2
Relative Risk
The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed Dr . But l er ' s r el at i ve r i sk
t est i mony because she had expr essl y di savowed her i nt ent , and
mi ni mi zed her abi l i t y, t o anal yze conf l i ct i ng epi demi ol ogi cal
st udi es. The di st r i ct cour t r easoned t hat wi t hout such anal ysi s,
2 The Mi l war ds br oadl y al l ege t hat t he di st r i ct cour t appl i edt he wr ong l egal st andar d when eval uat i ng Dr . But l er ' s f i t ness t oserve as an exper t wi t ness. They not e t hat t he cour t "hel d t hatDr . But l er i s unqual i f i ed because she cannot ' eval uat e the r el evantst udi es' wi t h t he ' r i gor ' of an epi demi ol ogi st . " Thi s ar gumentmi sconst r ues the di st r i ct cour t ' s act i on. The cour t di d not , i na vacuum, concl ude t hat Dr . But l er was unqual i f i ed t o pr ovi deexpert t est i mony i n t hi s case because she was not anepi demi ol ogi st . I nst ead, t he cour t st at ed t hat si nce Dr . But l erwas unwi l l i ng t o pr ovi de t est i mony r espect i ng t he epi demi ol ogi call i t er at ur e i n t he cont ext of t he "r el at i ve r i sk" appr oach, t heMi l war ds coul d not r el y on t hat met hod t o pr ove speci f i c causat i on.Whi l e we pr ovi de mor e det ai l about t hat concl usi on bel ow, i tsuf f i ces her e t o say that t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r as t heMi l war ds al l ege.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
9/32
- 9 -
i t was i mpossi bl e t o ensur e t hat t he st udi es she ci t ed wer e
act ual l y based on a r el i abl e met hodol ogy. The Mi l war ds chal l enge
t hi s deci si on i n t hr ee ways.
Fi r st , t hey asser t t hat i n r ej ect i ng t he t est i mony, t he
di st r i ct cour t r el i ed on an i ncor r ect pr emi se: t hat conf l i ct i ng
epi demi ol ogi cal st udi es exi st ed. They not e t hat t her e wer e st udi es
est abl i shi ng an i ncreased r i sk of APL af t er a cer t ai n l evel of
exposure, such as 8 ppm- year s. See, e. g. , Debor ah C. Gl ass et
al . , The Heal t h Watch Case - - Cont r ol St udy of Leukemi a and
Benzene, 1076 Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci . 80, 85 ( 2006) ; Ri char d B. Hayes
et al . , Benzene and Lymphohematopoi et i c Mal i gnanci es i n Humans, 40
Am. J . I ndus. Med. 117, 120. The Mi l wards al so acknowl edge t hat
ot her st udi es f ound no i ncr eased r i sk of l eukemi a wi t h exposure at
any l evel l ess t han 40 ppm- year s. See, e. g. , Rober t A. Ri nsky et
al . , Benzene and Leukemi a: An Epi demi ol ogi c Ri sk Assessment , 316
New Engl and J . Med. 1044 ( 1987) . They argue, however , t hat si nce
t he Ri nsky st udy di d not af f i r mat i vel y f i nd t he absence of a
r el at i onshi p, t he st udi es wer e not actual l y i n conf l i ct.
Whi l e i t i s cer t ai nl y t r ue t hat , at l east i n some cases,
t he "absence of evi dence" i s not t he same as "evi dence of absence, "
i t i s not si mi l ar l y t r ue t hat t he st udi es must pr esent
di amet r i cal l y opposi ng concl usi ons t o be i n t ensi on wi t h one
anot her . Her e, a number of st udi es have been i dent i f i ed t hat show
a cor r el at i on bet ween APL and benzene exposur e at a speci f i c l evel ,
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
10/32
- 10 -
whi l e ot her st udi es do not show t hat corr el at i on. I n or der t o
est abl i sh speci f i c causat i on by t he r el at i ve r i sk met hod, Dr .
But l er was r equi r ed t o choose a st udy, or st udi es, t o serve as a
basel i ne t o whi ch she coul d t hen compar e Br i an Mi l war d' s case.
Ther e can be no ser i ous quest i on t hat choosi ng a st udy t hat showed
a cor r el at i on above a speci f i c l evel ( e. g. , t he 8 ppm- year s i n t he
Gl ass st udy) , r at her t han one t hat di d not exhi bi t any such
cor r el at i on ( e. g. , t he 40 ppm- year s i n t he Ri nsky study) , yi el ds
a vast l y di f f er ent compar i son. The di st r i ct cour t di d not cl ear l y
er r i n f i ndi ng t hat t he st udi es wer e suf f i ci ent l y di st i nct f r om
one anot her such t hat ut i l i zi ng one, r at her t han anot her , woul d
necessar i l y l ead t o di f f er ent t est i mony.
The Mi l war ds next ar gue, al bei t summar i l y, t hat Dr .
But l er di d not act ual l y di savow her wi l l i ngness t o consi der t he
di ver gent st udi es. I nst ead, t hey al l ege t hat t he di st r i ct cour t
t ook her st at ement s out of cont ext .
We make qui ck work of t hi s ar gument gi ven t he cl ar i t y of
t he r ecor d. Dr . But l er anchor ed her t est i mony t o her no- saf e
t hr eshol d hypot hesi s, a t heor y t hat di d not t ur n on t he val i di t y
of any of t he epi demi ol ogi cal st udi es. I ndeed, gi ven t hat she
acknowl edged t hat she based t hat t heor y on " t he bi ol ogy, t he
pathophysi ol ogy, [ and] what t he subst ance does t o t he person and
t he di sease pr ocess, " i t was consi st ent f or her t o t hen st at e t hat
she had nei t her t he need nor t he i nt ent t o compare the compet i ng
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
11/32
- 11 -
epi demi ol ogi cal l i t er at ur e. 3 Ther e was no er r or i n t he di st r i ct
cour t ' s deci si on t o gi ve her st at ement s t hei r pl ai n meani ng.
Fi nal l y, t he Mi l war ds ar gue t hat even i f t he di st r i ct
cour t di d not er r i n t hese r espect s, Dr . But l er ' s t est i mony was
never t hel ess st i l l based on r el i abl e evi dence, and i t was t her ef or e
admi ssi bl e. I n suppor t of t hi s cont ent i on, t he Mi l war ds def end
t he st udi es t hat Dr . But l er i nvoked i n her t est i mony. They al so
ci t e Schul t z v. Akzo Novel Pai nt s, LLC, 721 F. 3d 426 ( 7t h Ci r .
2013) , whi ch t hey mai nt ai n i s cl osel y anal ogous t o t hi s case.
Gener al l y, wher e an exper t ' s medi cal opi ni on i s gr ounded
excl usi vel y on sci ent i f i c l i t er at ur e, a di str i ct cour t acts wi t hi n
i t s di scr et i on t o r equi r e t he exper t t o expl ai n why she r el i ed on
t he st udi es t hat she di d and, si mi l ar l y, why she di sr egar ded ot her ,
i ncompat i bl e r esear ch. See, e. g. , Kuhn v. Wyet h, I nc. , 686 F. 3d
618, 623- 24 & 633 ( 8t h Ci r . 2012) ( permi t t i ng t est i mony where t he
exper t wi t ness r el i ed on met hodol ogi cal l y rel i abl e st udi es and
pr ovi ded an expl anat i on f or why those st udi es wer e chosen) ; Nor r i s
v. Baxter Heal t hcar e Cor p. , 397 F. 3d 878, 886 ( 10t h Ci r . 2005)
( not i ng i n t he cont ext of a gener al causat i on f i ndi ng t hat t he
exper t wi t ness' s i nabi l i t y t o addr ess cont r ar y vi ews made t he
3 Li kewi se, i n di scussi ng t he st at i st i cal si gni f i cance oft he r epor t s, Dr . But l er seemi ngl y mi ni mi zed her abi l i t y t o anal yzet he st udi es when she sai d "and I ' mnot an epi demi ol ogi st i f you' r egoi ng t o go t her e. I ' m j ust sayi ng t hat t o me t hat ' s f ai r l y - -that ' s f ai r l y si gni f i cant . "
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
12/32
- 12 -
opi ni on unr el i abl e) . I t i s sel f - evi dent t hat , when an exper t
engages i n a r el at i ve r i sk anal ysi s i n t he manner t hat Dr . But l er
di d her e, t he di st r i ct cour t i s on f i r m gr ound i n r equi r i ng such
an expl anat i on, si nce t he val i di t y of t he appr oach depends on t he
r el i abi l i t y of t he st udi es chosen. See 3 Mod. Sci . Evi dence
23: 27 ( 2014- 2015 Ed. ) ( di scussi ng t he use of t he r el at i ve r i sk
appr oach i n est abl i shi ng speci f i c causat i on) . That i s, i f t he
exper t i s compar i ng t he pl ai nt i f f ' s condi t i on t o a st udy, and t he
st udy i s based on an unr el i abl e methodol ogy, t hen t he compar i son
i t sel f i s f ut i l e.
Schul t z, t he case on whi ch t he Mi l war ds r el y, i s
consi st ent wi t h t hi s vi ew. I n t hat case, t he Sevent h Ci r cui t
r ever sed a di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o excl ude speci f i c causat i on
exper t t est i mony about an i ndi vi dual ' s exposur e l evel t o benzene.
721 F. 3d at 428. The Sevent h Ci r cui t f ound t hat t he t est i mony was
r el i abl e because t he exper t " f ocused speci f i cal l y on t he amount of
benzene t o whi ch [ t he pl ai nt i f f ] had been exposed and r el at ed t hi s
amount t o t he sci ent i f i c l i t er at ur e. " I d. at 432. I mpor t ant l y,
t he exper t i n Schul t z di d not si mpl y poi nt t o f avor abl e st udi es
showi ng an i ncr eased r i sk of l eukemi a at l ow l evel s of exposur e.
I nst ead, t he exper t i n t hat case expl ai ned why he bel i eved t hat a
conf l i ct i ng st udy was unr el i abl e and why, based on hi s knowl edge
of t he l i t er at ur e, he chose t o r el y on t he st udi es t hat he di d.
I d. at 432- 33.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
13/32
- 13 -
Her e, t he r el evant st udi es wer e not onl y i n t ensi on
wi t h one anot her , but expr essl y cast each ot her i nt o doubt . See,
e. g. , EPA Of f i ce of Resear ch and Devel opment , Car ci nogeni c Ef f ect s
of Benzene: An Updat e, at 14 ( Apr i l 1998) . Gi ven t hat , t he
di st r i ct cour t r easonabl y r ul ed t hat t her e needed t o be some
i ndi cat i on of why Dr . But l er ut i l i zed t he st udi es t hat she di d.
I ndeed, her compl et e unwi l l i ngness t o engage wi t h t he conf l i ct i ng
st udi es ( i r r espect i ve of whet her she was abl e t o or not ) made i t
i mpossi bl e f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o ensur e t hat her opi ni on was
actual l y based on sci ent i f i cal l y rel i abl e evi dence and,
cor r espondi ngl y, t hat i t comport ed wi t h Rul e 702. Not onl y does
t hi s render t hi s case r eadi l y di st i ngui shabl e f r omSchul t z, but i t
al so j ust i f i es t he di s tr i ct court ' s deci s i on. 4
Differential Diagnosis
The di st r i ct cour t al so r ej ect ed Dr . But l er ' s
"di f f er ent i al di agnosi s. " Al t hough t he j udge di d not quest i on Dr .
4 We al so not e t hat t he Mi l war ds' posi t i on yi el ds a f ur t herpr obl em. Absent Dr . But l er ' s t est i mony wei ghi ng t he st udi es, t heonl y suppor t f or t hei r r el i abi l i t y i s t he f act t hat t hey wer e peer -r evi ewed, publ i shed wor ks. As we have not ed t hough, "an ar t i cl edoes not r each t he di gni t y of a ' r el i abl e aut hor i t y' mer el y becausesome edi t or , even a most r eput abl e one, sees f i t t o ci r cul at e i t. . . [ and] [ m] er e publ i cat i on cannot make t hem aut omat i cal l yr el i abl e aut hor i t y. " Meschi no v. N. Am. Dr ager , I nc. , 841 F. 2d429, 434 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) . Gi ven t he need f or some evi denceest abl i shi ng t he r el i abi l i t y of t he st udi es i nvoked, t he cour tl i kewi se di d not er r i n r ef usi ng t o t ake j udi ci al not i ce of t hei rr el i abi l i t y.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
14/32
- 14 -
But l er ' s deci si on t o " r ul e out " obesi t y and smoki ng as causes of
Br i an Mi l war d' s APL, t he cour t was concer ned about t he ut i l i t y of
t he appr oach gi ven t he hi gh percent age of APL cases t hat are
i di opat hi c ( accor di ng t o t he r ecor d, r oughl y 70- 80% of al l APL
di agnoses) . The j udge al so st at ed t hat Dr . But l er ' s reasoni ng was
ci r cul ar ; she " r ul ed out " an i di opat hi c APL by " r ul i ng i n" benzene
as a cause, but she had f ai l ed t o pr ovi de a sci ent i f i cal l y rel i abl e
met hod of " r ul i ng i n" benzene i n t he f i r st i nst ance. The Mi l war ds
cont end t hat i n maki ng t hi s deci si on, t he di st r i ct cour t i gnor ed
our case l aw t hat has bl essed an exper t ' s use of a di f f er ent i al
di agnosi s t o est abl i sh causat i on.
Even i f t he Mi l war ds' scant y ar gument i n thei r openi ng
br i ef wer e suf f i ci ent l y devel oped as t o avoi d a wai ver f i ndi ng,
see Uni t ed St at es v. Ol adosu, 744 F. 3d 36, 39 ( 1st Ci r . 2014)
( " [ b] ecause t he ar gument i s under devel oped, i t i s wai ved") , we
nonet hel ess see no abuse of di scret i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s
deci si on. The Mi l war ds ar e cer t ai nl y cor r ect t hat a "di f f er ent i al
di agnosi s" can be a " r el i abl e met hod of medi cal di agnosi s. "
Mi l war d, 639 F. 3d at 18; see al so Gr anf i el d v. CSX Tr ansp. , I nc. ,
597 F. 3d 474, 486 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . But , t hey st i l l must show t hat
t he st eps t aken as par t of t hat anal ysi s - - t he " r ul i ng out " and
t he "r ul i ng i n" of causes - - wer e accompl i shed ut i l i zi ng
sci ent i f i cal l y val i d met hods. See Ruggi er o v. War ner - Lamber t Co. ,
424 F. 3d 249, 254 ( 2d Ci r . 2005) .
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
15/32
- 15 -
Si nce Dr . But l er was onl y abl e t o " r ul e out " an
i di opathi c APL because she had " r ul ed i n" benzene as a cause, t he
val i di t y of her di f f er ent i al di agnosi s t ur ns on t he r el i abi l i t y of
t hat l at t er concl usi on. See Ruggi er o, 424 F. 3d at 254 ( not i ng
t hat an exper t must use r el i abl e sci ent i f i c met hods t o " r ul e i n"
causes) ; see al so Best v. Lowe' s Home Ct r s. , I nc. , 563 F. 3d 171,
179 ( 6t h Ci r . 2009) ; Gl ast et t er v. Novar t i s Phar m. Cor p. , 252 F. 3d
986, 989 ( 8t h Ci r . 2001) . I ndeed, t he r el i abi l i t y of t hat deci si on
i s par t i cul ar l y cr i t i cal her e gi ven t he ext ensi ve number of APL
cases t hat ar e i di opat hi c. Under such ci r cumst ances, el i mi nat i ng
a number of pot ent i al causes - - wi t hout pr oper l y and expl i ci t l y
"r ul i ng i n" a cause - - i s s i mpl y "of l i t t l e assi stance. "
Rest at ement ( Thi r d) of Tor t s; Phys. & Emot . Har m 28, cmt .
c( 4) ( 2010) .
Dr . But l er appear s t o have " r ul ed i n" benzene exposure
sol el y by r el yi ng on her t wo ot her t heor i es. But , as expl ai ned
above, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound bot h of t hese t heor i es t o be
unr el i abl e. As we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on
r egar di ng t he r el at i ve r i sk met hodol ogy, and si nce t he Mi l war ds
have not chal l enged t he di st r i ct cour t ' s no- saf e t hr eshol d
det er mi nat i on, t hey have f ai l ed t o show how Dr . But l er coul d have
r el i abl y ut i l i zed ei t her met hod t o " r ul e i n" benzene exposur e.
Nor , we not e, have t hey poi nt ed t o ot her evi dence i n t he recor d
t hat Dr . But l er coul d have concei vabl y used t o " r ul e i n" benzene.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
16/32
- 16 -
Gi ven t hat t he r ecor d does not cont ai n a sci ent i f i cal l y
r el i abl e basi s t o " r ul e i n" benzene, Dr . But l er needed some ot her
met hod t o " r ul e out " an i di opat hi c di agnosi s. She di d not pr ovi de
one. As such, t he di st r i ct cour t act ed wi t hi n i t s di scret i on t o
concl ude t hat t he ext r aor di nar y number of i di opat hi c APL cases,
coupl ed wi t h t he l ack of a r el i abl e means t o rul e out an i di opat hi c
di agnosi s her e, mut ed Dr . But l er ' s abi l i t y t o r el i abl y appl y t hi s
met hodol ogy. 5
III.
Once t he di st r i ct cour t excl uded Dr . But l er ' s t est i mony,
i t t hen cor r ect l y gr ant ed Rust - Ol eum' s mot i on f or summar y
j udgment . As i s wel l - est abl i shed under Massachuset t s l aw, "exper t
t est i mony i s r equi r ed t o est abl i sh medi cal causat i on. " Recki s v.
J ohnson & J ohnson, 28 N. E. 3d 445, 461 ( Mass . 2015) . Thi s appl i es
t o bot h gener al and speci f i c causat i on. I d. at 461 n. 33. Wi t hout
any ot her medi cal exper t evi dence i n t he recor d pr obat i ve on
speci f i c causat i on, j udgment as a mat t er of l aw was necessar i l y
r equi r ed. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56.
5 I n t hei r br i ef , t he Mi l war ds al so ar gue t hat Dr . But l er ' sposi t i on on speci f i c causat i on i s consi st ent wi t h t he l at encyper i od i n Br i an Mi l war d' s case. The di st r i ct cour t di d not r esti t s deci si on on t hat pr oposi t i on ( i nst ead, i t j ust not ed a concer nabout t he i ssue) , and we theref ore need not r each the ar gument .
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
17/32
- 17 -
Accor di ngl y, we affirm t he di str i ct cour t ' s deci s i on t o
excl ude Dr . But l er ' s t est i mony and i t s concomi t ant gr ant of summar y
j udgment i n f avor of Rust - Ol eum.
--Dissenting Opinion Follows--
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
18/32
- 18 -
THOMPSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Setting the Stage
Dr . But l er has qui t e t he CV. A gr aduat e of Wel l esl ey
Col l ege, she has a medi cal degr ee f r om Howar d Uni ver si t y and a
mast er s of publ i c heal t h f r om Col umbi a Uni ver si t y. Speci al i zi ng
i n occupat i onal medi ci ne, she i s boar d- cer t i f i ed i n pr event i ve
medi ci ne and general publ i c heal t h ( by t he Amer i can Boar d of
Pr event i ve Medi ci ne) and i n anat omi c pat hol ogy, cl i ni cal
pathol ogy, and hematol ogy ( by t he Amer i can Boar d of Pat hol ogy) . 6
Thi s means ( accor di ng t o t he Amer i can Board of Pr event i ve Medi ci ne)
t hat she has " cor e compet enci es" i n, among ot her t hi ngs,
"epi demi ol ogy" and " r esear ch i nt o causes of di sease and i nj ur y i n
popul at i on gr oups. " 7 She has a pr et t y i mpr essi ve j ob t oo, wor ki ng
f ul l t i me as a physi ci an at a VA medi cal cent er t hat deal s wi t h
vet er ans r avaged by di seases af t er bei ng exposed t o toxi ns dur i ng
t hei r ser vi ce. Fi gur i ng out t he causes of chr oni c i l l nesses i n
pat i ent s exposed t o t oxi c subst ances i s what she does day i n and
day out . Al l t ol d, she has ( i n t he di st r i ct j udge' s wor ds) over
a decade' s wor t h of exper i ence "as a pr act i ci ng di agnost i c
6 Pat hol ogy i s a medi cal speci al t y f ocusi ng on t he nat ur e andcauses of di seases. See St edman' s Medi cal Di ct i onar y 1332 ( 27t hed. 2000) ( "St edman' s, " f r omher e on) . And hemat ol ogy i s t he st udyof bl ood- r el at ed di seases. See i d. at 796.
7 Epi demi ol ogy i s t he st udy of t he i nci dence, di st r i but i on,and cont r ol of di sease i n a popul at i on. See i d. at 604.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
19/32
- 19 -
hemat opat hol ogi st and as a consul t ant on occupat i onal l y- r el at ed
mal i gnanci es. "
As t he Mi l war ds' speci f i c- causat i on exper t , Dr . But l er
t est i f i ed by r epor t , deposi t i on, and af f i davi t t hat based on her
r evi ew of t he sci ent i f i c evi dence t her e i s no "saf e" l evel of
benzene exposure. 8 I n other words, every benzene exposur e
i ncr eases a per son' s r i sk of l eukemi a. But , she added, gi ven our
di f f er ent genet i c makeups, what mi ght be a saf e exposure l evel f or
some coul d be a l ethal one f or ot hers. Anyway, usi ng t wo accept ed
causat i on met hodol ogi es "r el at i ve ri sk" and "di f f er ent i al
di agnosi s" and zeroi ng i n on Br i an' s benzene- exposur e l evel ( set
by Dr . St ewar t at 25. 6 ppm- year s) Dr . But l er concl uded t hat Br i an' s
"excessi ve" exposur e t o benzene caused hi s l eukemi a. 9
8 Remember t he Mi l war ds had t o show t hat benzene exposur ecan cause l eukemi a (gener al causat i on) and t hat Br i an' s exposurewas a subst ant i al f act or cont r i but i ng t o hi s l eukemi a ( speci f i ccausat i on) . A di f f er ent di st r i ct j udge excl uded t he Mi l war ds'gener al - causat i on exper t as unr el i abl e under Rul e 702. Not i ng( among ot her t hi ngs) t hat t he j udge had t aken "si des on quest i onst hat ar e cur r ent l y the f ocus of ext ensi ve sci ent i f i c r esear ch anddebat e and on whi ch r easonabl e sci ent i st s can cl ear l y di sagr ee" we concl uded t hat t he excl usi on edi ct const i t ut ed an abuse ofdi scr et i on. See Mi l war d, 639 F. 3d at 22, 26.
On a di f f er ent not e, because t her e ar e t wo Mi l war ds Br i anand Li nda i t makes sense t o use a f i r st name where necessary t oavoi d conf usi on. Obvi ousl y I i nt end no di sr espect .
9 As my f r i ends i n t he maj or i t y not e, t he Mi l war ds hi r ed Dr .St ewar t ( an i ndust r i al hygi eni st ) t o assess Br i an' s benzeneexposures.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
20/32
- 20 -
A qui ck word about how she appl i ed t hese methodol ogi es.
St ar t i ng wi t h r el at i ve r i sk, Dr . But l er sai d t hat even
i f t here were some thr eshol d l evel of benzene exposur e needed t o
cause l eukemi a, t hat t hr eshol d was exceeded here and by a
consi der abl e amount . Wi t h Br i an' s 25. 6 ppm- year s exposure l evel
f i r ml y i n mi nd, she poi nt ed t o a peer - r evi ewed epi demi ol ogy st udy
f i ndi ng t hat workers exposed t o benzene at or above 8 ppm- years
wer e 7 t i mes mor e l i kel y t han cont r ol s t o devel op l eukemi a. And
she di d not st op t her e. Rat her , she went on t o spot l i ght ot her
st udi es of t he same cal i ber showi ng a st at i st i cal l y si gni f i cant
i ncr eased r i sk of l eukemi a among worker s cumul at i vel y exposed t o
benzene at l evel s bel ow Br i an' s 25. 6 ppm- year s. 10 I n a deposi t i on
she sai d t hat she i s nei t her an epi demi ol ogi st nor a resear cher .
She al so agr eed t hat some st udi es f ound no rel at i onshi p between
benzene exposure and l eukemi a. Asked by def ense counsel i f she
"i nt end[ ed] i n t hi s case t o wei gh t he di f f er ent epi demi ol ogi cal
st udi es" and comment on "whi ch ones we shoul d rel y on and whi ch
ones we shoul d di scount , " she r epl i ed, "No" and t hen added:
I ' m r el yi ng on what I know about t he bi ol ogy,t he pathophysi ol ogy, what t he subst ance doest o t he person and t he di sease pr ocess . Now,
10 See Deborah R. Gl ass et al . , The Heal t h Watch Case Cont r olSt udy of Leukemi a and Benzene: The St ory So Far , 1076 Ann. N. Y.Acad. Sci . 80 ( 2006) ; Dusi ca Lazarov et al . , Acut e Myel oi d Leukemi aand Exposure t o Or gani c Sol vent s: A Case- Cont r ol St udy, 16 Eur .J . of Epi demi ol ogy 295 ( 2000) ; Ri char d B. Hayes et al . , Benzeneand t he Dose- Rel ated I nci dence of Hematol ogi c Neopl asms i n Chi na,89 J . of t he Nat ' l Cancer I nst . 1065 ( 1997) .
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
21/32
- 21 -
i f t her e ar e st udi es t hat suppor t i t t hent hat ' s even bet t er , but wi t hout t he st udi esbased on what I know t her e i s a ver y i t ' smor e l i kel y t han not t hat benzene cont r i but est o t he devel opment of [ t he t ype of l eukemi aBr i an suf f er s f r om] . 11
And she l at er sai d t hat "one doesn' t j ust r el y on l i t er at ur e" i n
f or mul at i ng a speci f i c- causat i on opi ni on.
Turni ng, t hen, t o di f f er ent i al di agnosi s ( apt l y
descr i bed by the maj or i t y as "essent i al l y a pr ocess of
el i mi nat i on") , Dr . But l er "r ul ed out " possi bl e causes of Br i an' s
l eukemi a, l i ke smoki ng and obesi t y, l eavi ng onl y benzene. She
t al ked about "' i di opat hi c' l eukemi a" t oo "i di opat hi c" bei ng
another way of sayi ng medi cal pr of essi onal s do not know why a gi ven
person has t he di sease. " [ E] ver y case of l eukemi a has some
cause[ ] , " she expl ai ned, and onl y " [ t ] hose cases wi t h uni dent i f i ed
causes" get hi t wi t h t he "' i di opat hi c' " tag. But gi ven her
concl usi on t hat Br i an' s " benzene exposur es wer e a subst ant i al
f actor causi ng hi s [ l eukemi a] , " she coul d "al so ' r ul e[ ] out ' t hat
hi s [ l eukemi a] was . . . ' i di opat hi c. ' "
The di st r i ct j udge, however , woul d have none of Dr .
But l er ' s t al k about benzene bei ng t he speci f i c cause of Br i an' s
l eukemi a. Gi ven her concessi on t hat she i s " ' not an
epi demi ol ogi st ' " and " ' not a r esear cher , ' " and gi ven her
11 Pat hophysi ol ogy i s t he st udy of t he f unct i onal changes t hataccompany a part i cul ar di sease. See St edman' s 1333.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
22/32
- 22 -
"pr of essed i nabi l i t y t o engage wi t h conf l i ct i ng epi demi ol ogi cal
l i t er at ur e" ( t hese ar e quot es f r omt he j udge' s r escri pt ) , t he j udge
excl uded her r el at i ve- r i sk anal ysi s as unr el i abl e under Rul e 702. 12
That meant t hat Dr . But l er ' s di f f er ent i al - di agnosi s anal ysi s
t hr ough whi ch she " ' r ul ed out ' an i di opat hi c or i gi n of [ Br i an' s]
l eukemi a by ' r ul i ng i n' benzene" ( t hese too ar e quot es f r om t he
j udge' s or der ) was unr el i abl e t oo ( because she i s, t he j udge
concl uded, not qual i f i ed t o say whet her benzene exposure at Br i an' s
l evel coul d have caused hi s l eukemi a) . And wi t h t he Mi l war ds'
speci f i c- causat i on exper t out of t he pi ctur e, al l t hat was l ef t
f or t he j udge t o do was ent er summary j udgment agai nst t hemwhi ch
t he j udge di d.
Fast - f or war d t o t he pr esent , wi t h t he maj or i t y spyi ng no
abused di scr et i on her e because Dr . But l er ' s "compl et e
unwi l l i ngness t o engage wi t h t he conf l i ct i ng st udi es ( i r r espect i ve
of whet her she was abl e to or not ) made i t i mpossi bl e f or t he
[ j udge] t o ensure t hat her opi ni on was act ual l y based on
sci ent i f i cal l y r el i abl e evi dence" as r equi r ed by Rul e 702. Cal l
me unper suaded. As I see t hi ngs, t he compl ai nt s about Dr . But l er ' s
12 The "conf l i ct i ng" st udy t hat ever yone f ocuses on i s Rober tA. Ri nsky et al . , Benzene and Leukemi a: An Epi demi ol ogi c Ri skAssessment , 316 New Eng. J . of Med. 1044 ( 1987) , whi ch f ound noi ncr eased r i sk of l eukemi a i n worker s exposed t o l ess t han 40 ppm-years of benzene.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
23/32
- 23 -
speci f i c- causat i on opi ni on go t o wei ght , not admi ssi bi l i t y as I
now expl ai n. 13
My Take on the Matter
(a)The Standar d of Revi ew Expl ai ned
Abuse- of - di scr et i on r evi ew i s "r espectf ul , " cer t ai nl y.
Cor p. Techs. v. Har net t , 731 F. 3d 6, 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . But
" r espect f ul " does not mean we must t hrow up our hands and si mpl y
af f i r m ever y di scret i onar y cal l . See, e. g. , Negr on- Al meda v.
Sant i ago, 528 F. 3d 15, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . Revi ew under t hi s
st andar d does i nvol ve r evi ew, af t er al l . See, e. g. , Dopp v.
Pr i t zker , 38 F. 3d 1239, 1253 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . And we wi l l not
hesi t at e t o f i nd abuse wher e, f or exampl e, t he di st r i ct j udge based
hi s deci si on on cl ear l y er r oneous f act s, made a ser i ous l egal
er r or , or suf f er ed a si gni f i cant l apse of j udgment , see, e. g. ,
Cent . Pensi on Fund of t he I nt ' l Uni on of Oper at i ng Eng' r s &
Par t i ci pat i ng Emp' r s v. Ray Hal uch Gr avel Co. , 745 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st
Ci r . 2014) ; Ri va v. Fi cco, 615 F. 3d 35, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ; Rui z-
Tr oche v. Pepsi Col a of P. R. Bot t l i ng Co. , 161 F. 3d 77, 83 ( 1st
Ci r . 1998) a poi nt made each t i me we have r eversed the excl usi on
13 Because the maj or i t y j et t i sons t he case by uphol di ng t hej udge' s deci si on t o excl ude Dr . But l er ' s t est i mony, I ( obvi ousl y)f ocus my ener gy on t hat i ssue. So, l i ke t he maj or i t y, I make nocomment on Rust - Ol eum' s ot her ar gument s i . e. , t hat t he j udgeshoul d have excl uded Dr . St ewar t ' s t est i mony and that t he Mi l war dscannot show t hat t he f ai l ur e to pr ovi de cer t ai n war ni ngs aboutbenzene pr oxi mat el y caused Br i an' s i nj ur i es.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
24/32
- 24 -
of exper t t est i mony, see, e. g. , Mi l war d, 639 F. 3d at 13- 14, 23-
25; Rui z- Tr oche, 161 F. 3d at 79, 83- 86.
(b)A Short Pr i mer on Expert Opi ni on
Rul e 702 gover ns t he admi ssi on of exper t - opi ni on
t est i mony, wi t h t he of f er i ng par t y requi r ed t o show t hat such
t est i mony i s rel evant and r el i abl e. See, e. g. , Kumho Ti r e Co. v.
Car mi chael , 526 U. S. 137, 149 ( 1999) ( r el yi ng on Dauber t , 509 U. S.
at 592) ; Rui z- Tr oche, 161 F. 3d at 80 ( same) . Exper t - opi ni on
t est i mony i s rel evant i f i t wi l l assi st t he f act f i nder i n
under st andi ng and deci di ng a f act . See, e. g. , Dauber t , 509 U. S.
at 592. And i t i s r el i abl e i f i t has "a r el i abl e basi s i n t he
knowl edge and exper i ence of [ t he per t i nent ] di sci pl i ne. "14 I d.
Basi cal l y t hen, di st r i ct j udges ar e supposed t o weed out
nonsense opi ni ons by j unk sci ent i st s. But i n doi ng so, t hey must
keep a bunch of t hi ngs i n mi nd i ncl udi ng t he f ol l owi ng:
The r ul e on exper t - opi ni on t est i mony i s notabl y " l i ber al , "
wi t h t he evi dence consi der ed pr esumpt i vel y admi ssi bl e. See
4 J ack B. Wei nst ei n & Mar gar et A. Ber ger , Wei nst ei n' s
14 Because ever yone f ocuses on whether Dr . But l er ' s t est i monyi s rel i abl e, I wi l l do l i kewi se.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
25/32
- 25 -
Feder al Evi dence 702. 02[ 1] , at 702- 5 ( J oseph M. McLaughl i n
ed. , 2d ed. 2013) ( "Wei nst ei n' s, " t o save some keyst r okes) .
Proponent s of exper t t est i mony must show t hat t he pr oposed
wi t ness i s abl e t hr ough her educat i on, t r ai ni ng, or
exper i ence t o of f er a meani ngf ul opi ni on on t he i ssue i n
pl ay. I d. 702. 04[ 1] [ c] , at 702- 57.
An exper t can r el y, t hen, on "cl i ni cal i nst i nct " i . e. ,
"what exper i ence adds t o sci ent i f i c knowl edge and t r ai ni ng"
whi ch i s a wel l - known and accept ed part of t oday' s medi cal
pr act i ce. Muel l er v. Auker , 700 F. 3d 1180, 1191 ( 9t h Ci r .
2012) ( quot ed appr ovi ngl y i n Wei nst ei n' s 702. 05[ 2] [ c] , at
702- 103 n. 46) .
J udges abuse t hei r di scr et i on i f t hey "excl ude t est i mony
t hat woul d ot her wi se" hel p t he f act f i nder "under st and a
f act i n i ssue, si mpl y because the exper t does not have t he
speci al i zat i on" t hat t he j udges t hi nk "most appr opr i at e. "
Pags- Ram r ez v. Ram r ez- Gonzl ez, 605 F. 3d 109, 114 ( 1st
Ci r . 2010) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so
Ral st on v. Smi t h & Nephew Ri char ds, I nc. , 275 F. 3d 965, 970
( 10t h Ci r . 2001) ( expl ai ni ng t hat so l ong as t he exper t
keeps " wi t hi n t he r easonabl e conf i nes of [ her ] subj ect ar ea,
. . . a l ack of speci al i zat i on does not af f ect t he
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
26/32
- 26 -
admi ssi bi l i t y of [ her ] opi ni on, but onl y i t s wei ght "
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .
Al so, an exper t need not have epi demi ol ogi cal st udi es at
t he r eady t o get her opi ni on i n. See Mi l war d, 639 F. 3d at
24 ( hol di ng t hat " [ e] pi demi ol ogi cal st udi es ar e not per se
r equi r ed as a condi t i on of admi ssi bi l i t y r egar dl ess of
cont ext " ) ; see al so Dauber t , 509 U. S. at 593 ( expl ai ni ng
t hat "[ p] ubl i cat i on . . . i s not a si ne qua non of
admi ssi bi l i t y" ) .
And an opi ni on, by the way, does not have t o concl usi vel y
pr ove causat i on t o be admi ssi bl e. " [ M] edi cal knowl edge, "
we can al l agr ee, " i s of t en uncer t ai n. The human body i s
compl ex, et i ol ogy i s of t en uncer t ai n, and et hi cal concer ns
of t en pr event doubl e- bl i nd st udi es cal cul at ed t o est abl i sh
st at i st i cal pr oof . " Uni t ed St at es v. Sandoval - Mendoza, 472
F. 3d 645, 655 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) . But t hat "does not pr ecl ude
t he i nt r oduct i on of medi cal exper t opi ni on t est i mony when
medi cal knowl edge per mi t s t he asser t i on of a r easonabl e
opi ni on. " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .
Cr i t i cal l y t oo, deci di ng "whi ch of sever al compet i ng
sci ent i f i c t heor i es has t he best pr ovenance" i s none of t he
j udges' busi ness whi ch i s j ust anot her way of sayi ng t hat
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
27/32
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
28/32
- 28 -
j udge' s or der ) i s f i l l ed wi t h er r or s. And t hese er r or s r i se t o
t he l evel of an abuse of di scr et i on.
Take t he di st r i ct j udge' s f i xat i on on her sayi ng t hat
she was "not an epi demi ol ogi st " and "not a r esearcher . " Ti me and
agai n we have sai d t hat one "need not be a speci al i st i n a
par t i cul ar medi cal di sci pl i ne t o r ender exper t t est i mony rel at i ng
t o t hat di sci pl i ne. " Gaydar v. Soci edad I nst i t ut o Gi neco
Qui r ur gi co y Pl ani f i caci on Fami l i ar , 345 F. 3d 15, 24 ( 1st Ci r .
2003) ; see al so Pags- Ram r ez, 605 F. 3d at 116- 17. And not onl y
have we t al ked t he tal k, but we have wal ked t he wal k r eversi ng
as an abuse of di scr et i on exper t - excl usi on r ul i ngs premi sed on an
exper t ' s mi ssi ng t he t ype of speci al i zat i on t he j udges t hi nk
necessary, even t hough the t est i mony woul d have hel ped t he j ur y
under st and a di sput ed i ssue. See, e. g. , Pags- Ram r ez, 605 F. 3d
at 116- 17. And gi ven her t r ai ni ng and exper i ence don' t f or get ,
( a) her boar d cer t i f i cat i on i n pr event i ve medi ci ne shows she has
competency i n epi demi ol ogy and r esearch i nt o causes of di sease,
and ( b) she anal yzes speci f i c- causat i on i ssues as a r out i ne par t
of her j ob t he j udge' s r ul i ng f aul t i ng Dr . But l er f or not bei ng
abl e t o "eval uat e t he r el evant st udi es" wi t h t he " r i gor " of an
epi demi ol ogi st f i t s t hat cat egor y of er r or . The maj or i t y t r i es t o
downpl ay t he di st r i ct j udge' s comment s about her not bei ng an
epi demi ol ogi st by pl ayi ng up how concer ned he was wi t h her
"unwi l l i ng[ ness]" t o anal yze t he "conf l i cti ng" l i t er at ur e. But
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
29/32
- 29 -
t he f act r emai ns t hat t he j udge di d add her non- epi demi ol ogi st
st at us t o hi s deci si onal mi x, whi ch ( f or t he r easons j ust
di scussed) i s an abuse of di scr et i on, pl ai n and si mpl e.
Now, as f or t he j udge' s bel i ef shar ed by t he maj or i t y
t hat Dr . But l er "pr of essed [ an] i nabi l i t y t o engage wi t h t he
conf l i ct i ng epi demi ol ogi cal l i t er at ur e, " t her e ar e pr obl ems
gal or e.
For st ar t er s, I espy no conf l i ct . To r epeat a poi nt I
made a f ew paragr aphs ago: The st udi es Dr . But l er r el i ed on show
t hat benzene- exposur e l evel s bel ow t he 25. 6 ppm- years endur ed by
Br i an can cause l eukemi a. The Ri nsky st udy t he supposedl y
"conf l i ct i ng" s t udy al so shows t hat benzene exposur e at cer t ai n
l evel s can cause l eukemi a, t hough t he aut hors f ound no i ncr eased
r i sk of l eukemi a among workers exposed t o l ess t han 40 ppm- years
of benzene. Accor di ng t o t he di st r i ct j udge, because t he Ri nsky
st udy di d not f i nd any i ncr eased r i sk of l eukemi a at l ower exposur e
l evel s, t her e i s a "conf l i ct " and "debat e wi t hi n t he
epi demi ol ogi cal l i t er at ur e" t hat can onl y be put t o r est by someone
wi t h epi demi ol ogi st cr edent i al s. Not onl y di d t he j udge get t he
epi demi ol ogi st - credent i al s par t wr ong ( as I j ust not ed) ; he got
t he "conf l i ct " par t wr ong t oo. For a t r ue conf l i ct t o exi st , t he
Ri nsky st udy woul d have to show t hat benzene- exposur e l evel s of
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
30/32
- 30 -
25. 6 ppm- year s or l ower cannot cause l eukemi a. And t he Ri nsky
st udy does no such t hi ng.
Anyhow, even assumi ng t her e i s a conf l i ct , t he j udge
st i l l er r ed i n t wo i mpor t ant ways. For one t hi ng, despi t e what
t he j udge sai d, Dr . But l er har dl y copped t o bei ng unabl e to engage
wi t h t he l i t er at ur e. By my l i ght s, t he j udge coul d onl y say what
he sai d by mi sr eadi ng her deposi t i on. Quest i oned ( r ecal l ) by
def ense counsel about whether she " i nt ended i n t hi s case to wei gh
t he di f f er ent epi demi ol ogi cal st udi es and of f er an opi ni on as t o
whi ch ones we shoul d r el y on and whi ch ones we shoul d di scount , "
Dr . But l er sai d, "No. " That i s because, she st r essed, ( a) one
need not r el y j ust "on l i t er at ur e" and ( b) her exper i ence wi t h
"bi ol ogy, " " pat hophysi ol ogy, " and " t he di sease pr ocess" pr ovi ded
t he speci al i zed knowl edge t o suppor t her speci f i c- causat i on
t est i mony. St at ement s ( a) and ( b) squar e wi t h our casel aw. See,
e. g. , Mi l war d, 639 F. 3d at 24 ( emphasi zi ng how " [ e] pi demi ol ogi cal
st udi es ar e not per se r equi r ed as a condi t i on of admi ssi bi l i t y") .
And j ust as i mpor t ant l y, not hi ng she sai d t her e i nt i mat ed even a
possi bl e whi sper of a hi nt of a suggest i on t hat she coul d not t ake
on t he r el evant l i t er at ur e. Put di f f er ent l y, she di d not say t hat
she l acks t he know- how t o assess Rust - Ol eum' s pref er r ed st udi es
onl y t hat she di d not need t o i n f or mul at i ng her exper t opi ni on.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
31/32
- 31 -
The wor d " i nt end" I hope we can al l agr ee does not i mpl y
"can' t . "
For anot her t hi ng, despi t e what t he j udge i ndi cat ed,
nei t her Dr . But l er nor t he Mi l war ds had any bur den t o expl ai n why
t he Ri nsky st udy i s wr ong. Thi nk back t o t he pr i mer : The
pr oponent s of exper t t est i mony, I not ed, ar e not r ef l exi vel y
obl i ged t o "di scr edi t " a st udy pushed by t hei r opponent s. Kuhn
a case hi ghl i ght ed by t he maj or i t y says as much. Sur e, t he
pl ai nt i f f s' exper t t her e t r i ed t o poke hol es i n a st udy r el i ed on
by t he def endant s. And, deemi ng t he cr i t i ci sms i nsubst ant i al , t he
j udge excl uded t he exper t f r om t est i f yi ng. Si gni f i cant l y f or
pr esent pur poses, t hough, t he ci r cui t cour t wr ot e t hat t he exper t
di d not have t o debunk t he st udy; he onl y had t o show t hat he
r eached hi s concl usi on vi a a sound methodol ogy. 15 See Kuhn, 686
F. 3d at 626. Dr . But l er di d t hat i n spades, usi ng t wo r ecogni zed
t echni ques f or i dent i f yi ng causes ( r el at i ve r i sk and di f f er ent i al
di agnosi s) and r el yi ng i n par t on st udi es t hat ( as best I can t el l )
nei t her t he di st r i ct j udge nor t he maj or i t y has any pr obl ems wi t h.
15 So i nst ead of suppor t i ng t he maj or i t y' s posi t i on t hat Dr .But l er had t o expl ai n why she di sagr eed wi t h " i ncompat i bl e"st udi es, Kuhn r ej ect s t hat posi t i on. And Nor r i s anot her caseci t ed by the maj or i t y i s not a di f f er ence maker f or t he maj or i t yei t her . The cour t t her e uphel d t he excl usi on of exper t t est i monybecause t he exper t s di d not conf r ont t he r eal i t y t hat t hei ropi ni ons wer e "f l at l y cont r ar y t o al l of t he avai l abl eepi demi ol ogi cal evi dence, " see 397 F. 3d at 885- 86 whi ch i s wor l dsapar t f r om our case.
-
7/25/2019 Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 1st Cir. (2016)
32/32
And havi ng met her bur den, a j ur y shoul d get t o deci de whi ch
st udi es t o bel i eve ( her s or Rust - Ol eum' s) , i f any, see i d. j ust
l i ke a j ur y woul d get t o do i f f aced wi t h duel i ng exper t s ( i nst ead
of duel i ng st udi es) , see Fel i ci ano- Hi l l , 439 F. 3d at 25.
Summing Up
Because, as di scussed, t he j udge made ser i ous j udgment
er r or s i n excl udi ng Dr . But l er ' s exper t t est i mony a r ul i ng ( i n
my vi ew) i nconsi st ent wi t h t he " l i ber al t hr ust of t he Feder al Rul es
and t hei r gener al appr oach of r el axi ng t he t r adi t i onal bar r i er s t o
' opi ni on' t est i mony, " see Dauber t , 509 U. S. at 588 I woul d
r ever se hi s rul i ng as an abuse of di scr et i on. And because t he
maj or i t y, t hough consci ent i ous, has deci ded ot her wi se, I
r espect f ul l y but unequi vocal l y di ssent .