Andrews v. United States Steel Corp.
149 N.M. 461
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Decedent, a farmer, worked with gasoline and a product called Liquid Wrench from 1947–1971 and later died from myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)/AML diagnosed in 2004.
- Plaintiff alleges benzene exposure from defendants' gasoline and Liquid Wrench caused Decedent's MDS and death.
- Plaintiff designated Dr. Mark Nicas (industrial hygienist) and Dr. Frank Gardner (hematologist) as experts on exposure and causation.
- Defendants moved to exclude the experts under Daubert/Alberico; district court held a Daubert hearing and excluded the experts' testimony.
- District court granted summary judgment for Defendants on causation, based on exclusion of the Plaintiffs' expert testimony, and awarded expert fees and costs.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's Daubert determinations, ruling on causation, admissibility, and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on causation. | Gibson Andrews contends there is a triable issue of causation based on expert testimony. | Defendants argue excluding the expert testimony leaves no causation evidence, requiring summary judgment. | Yes, summary judgment proper; causation evidence inadmissible without experts. |
| Whether Daubert/Alberico reliability analysis was properly applied to Nicas. | Nicas's methodology is scientifically reliable and admissible under Rule 11-702. | Nicas's dermal exposure model and duration assumptions are unreliable and improperly applied. | No; district court did not abuse discretion in excluding Nicas's testimony due to unreliable dermal exposure calculations. |
| Whether Gardner's testimony was properly excluded as not reliable or relevant. | Gardner's testimony links Decedent's MDS subtype to benzene exposure. | Gardner relied on Nicas's exposure figures and offered no independent threshold for benzene causing MDS. | Yes; Gardner's testimony properly excluded as unreliable/relevant lacking independent exposure evidence. |
| Whether expert-witness cost/taxable costs were properly awarded under Rule 1-054(D). | Costs and expert fees should not be taxed to the prevailing party. | Costs, including expert-witness fees, were properly awarded as reasonably necessary and pursuant to Rule 1-054(D). | Yes; district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs and expert fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alberico v. State, 116 N.M. 156 (1993) (adopted Daubert approach for admissibility of scientific evidence)
- Torres v. State, 1999-NMSC-010, 127 N.M. 20 (1999-NMSC-010) (Daubert/Ablerico reliability standard; evidentiary reliability required)
- Allen v. Pa. Eng'g Corp., 102 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 1996) (general and specific causation framework in toxic torts)
- Norris v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 397 F.3d 878 (10th Cir. 2005) (distinction between general and specific causation in toxic torts)
- In re TMI Litigation, 193 F.3d 613 (3d Cir. 1999) (reliability concerns in expert exposure estimates; fatalistic assumptions rejected)
- Castellow v. Chevron USA, 97 F.Supp.2d 780 (S.D. Tex. 2000) (exposure calculations must be realistic and scientifically supported)
- Shatkin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 727 F.2d 202 (2d Cir. 1984) (reliability and conjecture limits on expert testimony)
- Moore v. Ashland Chem., Inc., 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998) (non-expert gatekeeping and reliability standards)