Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 300 Neb. 47

Freeman sued Roche alleging Accutane (isotretinoin) caused her inflammatory bowel disease (diagnosed as Crohn’s disease); she relied on Dr. David B. Sachar for general and specific causation opinions.
Roche moved in limine under Daubert/Schafersman to exclude Sachar’s causation testimony, challenging the reliability and application of his methodology (not his qualifications).
At a Daubert/Schafersman hearing, the district court found Sachar used a weight-of-the-evidence approach but applied it inconsistently, cherry-picked studies, and treated conflicting epidemiological evidence unfairly.
The court concluded Sachar’s methodology was conclusion-driven and unreliable, excluded his testimony in a detailed 42-page order, and sustained Roche’s motion in limine.
Roche then moved for summary judgment; the district court granted it because, without admissible expert proof on causation, Freeman could not create a genuine issue of material fact.
Freeman appealed, arguing the court overstepped gatekeeping and improperly excluded her expert and thus erred in granting summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court required too much and improperly excluded Sachar’s expert testimony under Daubert/Schafersman	Freeman: court invaded the jury’s role and should have admitted Sachar’s opinions; methodology was acceptable	Roche: Sachar’s causation opinions were based on unreliable, conclusion-driven application of weight-of-evidence and cherry-picking	Court: No abuse of discretion; methodology was unreliably applied and testimony properly excluded
Whether Sachar employed an accepted and reliably applied methodology for general and specific causation	Freeman: weight-of-the-evidence is an accepted method and Sachar applied it adequately	Roche: Sachar selectively dismissed adverse epidemiology and failed to apply consistent standards across evidence types	Court: Weight-of-the-evidence is acceptable, but Sachar’s inconsistent standards and cherry-picking failed the required intellectual rigor
Whether summary judgment was proper after exclusion of expert testimony on causation	Freeman: If Sachar’s testimony were admitted, a factual dispute on causation would exist	Roche: Without admissible expert causation evidence, Freeman cannot prove an essential element and is entitled to judgment	Court: Proper; exclusion left Freeman with no admissible evidence of causation, so summary judgment for Roche affirmed

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (trial courts must assess reliability and relevance of expert scientific testimony)
Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 (Nebraska’s adoption of Daubert gatekeeping standards)
King v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 277 Neb. 203 (weight-of-the-evidence methodology and standards for expert causation testimony)
State v. Braesch, 292 Neb. 930 (factors for evaluating expert reliability under Daubert/Schafersman)