Brown v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.
765 F.3d 765
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Shannon Brown, a BNSF track-worker since 1996, alleged cumulative-trauma injuries (bilateral carpal tunnel, left cubital tunnel, and a right-shoulder injury) from vibrating tools and heavy lifting and sued under FELA.
- Brown retained occupational-medicine expert Dr. David Fletcher, who produced reports attributing Brown’s wrist, elbow, and shoulder conditions to workplace exposures via differential etiology and described a formal "job site analysis."
- In deposition, Fletcher admitted he did not perform the job site analysis he described: he did not observe Brown working, did not measure forces/frequencies, lacked duration/frequency data for workplace exposures, and relied on recollection and photographs rather than objective measurements.
- Fletcher also failed to meaningfully investigate or rule out obvious alternative causes (motorcycle riding, volunteer firefighting, smoking, family history, BMI) and acknowledged uncertainty about a formal shoulder diagnosis without MRI.
- The magistrate judge excluded Fletcher’s testimony under Rules 702/703 and Daubert/Kumho as unreliable and based on untestable assumptions, and granted summary judgment for BNSF; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert causation testimony under Daubert/Rule 702 | Fletcher used accepted differential-etio methods and experience; exclusion was overreach | Fletcher failed to apply his stated, testable methods and omitted investigation of obvious alternatives | Court affirmed exclusion: Fletcher did not follow reliable, testable methodology |
| Sufficiency of expert’s differential etiology given lack of job-site measurements | Expert experience and patient history suffice; precise exposure data unnecessary | Without frequency/duration or objective measures, opinion is speculative and untestable | Court held expert’s failure to quantify/examine exposures fatally undermined reliability |
| Duty to investigate and rule out alternative causes | Fletcher considered alternatives sufficiently; plaintiff bears relaxed FELA causation standard | Fletcher did not meaningfully investigate motorcycle/firefighting/BMI/smoking/family history | Court found failure to rule out obvious alternatives inconsistent with differential etiology |
| Whether exclusion exceeded gatekeeping (invaded the jury’s role) | District court improperly nitpicked facts instead of methodology | Court properly focused on whether methods were reliable and applied | Court ruled gatekeeping was appropriate; factual gaps showed methodological unreliability |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeper must ensure expert testimony rests on reliable methods)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony, including non-scientific)
- Myers v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 629 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2010) (differential diagnosis/etiology can establish causation for cumulative-trauma injuries)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (trial courts may exclude expert opinion not sufficiently tied to reliable data)
- Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994) (FELA construed liberally with a relaxed causation standard)
- Ervin v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 492 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2007) (reliability of differential diagnosis is a case-specific inquiry)
- Schultz v. Akzo Nobel Paints, LLC, 721 F.3d 426 (7th Cir. 2013) (expert must adequately account for obvious alternative explanations)