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

Plaintiff Aimee Freeman sued Roche for product liability, alleging Accutane (isotretinoin) caused her inflammatory bowel disease (ultimately characterized as Crohn’s disease).
Freeman intended to prove general and specific causation through expert Dr. David B. Sachar, who applied a weight-of-the-evidence methodology reviewing animal studies, case reports, and epidemiology.
Roche moved in limine under Daubert/Schafersman to exclude Sachar’s causation testimony as methodologically unreliable; the district court held a evidentiary hearing.
The district court excluded Sachar’s testimony, finding he cherry-picked favorable studies, applied inconsistent standards, and reached a conclusion-driven opinion.
After exclusion, Roche moved for summary judgment; the court granted it because Freeman lacked admissible expert evidence to prove causation and therefore could not create a genuine issue of material fact.
Freeman appealed, arguing the court exceeded its gatekeeping role and required too much of her expert; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court improperly excluded plaintiff’s expert under Daubert/Schafersman	Freeman: court demanded too much and should have left weight/credibility to the jury	Roche: Sachar’s methodology was unreliable and conclusion-driven, warranting exclusion	Court: No abuse of discretion—methodology unreliably applied and excluded appropriately
Whether Sachar employed an accepted methodology for causation	Freeman: Sachar used an accepted weight-of-the-evidence approach	Roche: Even if method accepted, it was applied inconsistently and selectively	Court: Weight-of-evidence is accepted, but Sachar’s application was unreliable (cherry-picking)
Whether exclusion of expert testimony precluded a genuine issue of material fact on causation	Freeman: Expert would have created a fact issue	Roche: Without admissible expert proof, no evidence of causation remains	Court: Without expert admissible causation evidence, no genuine issue exists; summary judgment proper
Whether internal Roche documents or label constituted admission of causation	Freeman: Company documents and label show Roche admitted causal association	Roche: Documents show only association/temporal link, not causation	Court: Documents show association not causation; do not substitute for admissible expert proof

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial courts must assess reliability and relevance of expert scientific testimony)
Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 (2001) (Nebraska’s gatekeeping standard aligned with Daubert)
King v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 277 Neb. 203 (2009) (weight-of-the-evidence methodology recognized for causation inquiries)
Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148 (2015) (failure of proof on an essential element renders other facts immaterial)