Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.
911 N.W.2d 591
Neb.2018Background
- Freeman sued Roche alleging Accutane (isotretinoin) caused her inflammatory bowel disease (frequently called Crohn’s disease for purposes of the case), bringing product liability claims requiring proof of causation.
- Freeman planned to offer Dr. David B. Sachar as an expert on general and specific causation; Roche moved to exclude his testimony under Daubert/Schafersman, arguing his methodology was unreliable.
- At a Daubert/Schafersman hearing the district court ruled Sachar’s methodology unreliable and conclusion-driven, principally because he cherry‑picked supporting studies while discounting an overwhelming body of contrary epidemiological literature.
- The court excluded Sachar’s testimony; Roche then moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted because Freeman had no other admissible expert proof on causation.
- Freeman appealed, arguing the district court exceeded its gatekeeping role, improperly evaluated credibility/weight, and erred in granting summary judgment on general causation.
Issues
| Issue | Freeman's Argument | Roche's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court applied proper gatekeeping in excluding Sachar's expert testimony under Daubert/Schafersman | Sachar’s opinions were based on a weight‑of‑evidence methodology and should be admitted for the jury to weigh | Sachar’s application of the methodology was unreliable and conclusion‑driven (cherry‑picking studies) | Court affirmed exclusion: methodology unreliably applied; exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Sachar used an accepted methodology | Freeman: weight‑of‑the‑evidence is an accepted causation method (admissible) | Roche: even if accepted, Sachar failed to apply consistent standards and misused the method | Held: method accepted but was unreliably applied by Sachar (cherry‑picking) |
| Whether the exclusion required the court to resolve credibility/weight improperly | Freeman: exclusion improperly invaded the jury’s role to assess credibility and weight | Roche: gatekeeping permits the court to exclude testimony that lacks sufficient intellectual rigor | Held: court acted within gatekeeping role; evaluating reliability is proper and did not usurp the jury |
| Whether summary judgment was proper after exclusion | Freeman: admitted evidence (Roche documents, label) and excluded testimony could create a fact issue on causation | Roche: without admissible expert causation proof Freeman cannot survive summary judgment | Held: summary judgment affirmed — no genuine dispute on causation without expert testimony; association ≠ causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial‑court gatekeeping factors for expert admissibility)
- Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 (2001) (Nebraska application of Daubert gatekeeping)
- King v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 277 Neb. 203 (2009) (standard of review and expert admissibility principles)
- Freeman v. Hoffman‑La Roche, Inc., 260 Neb. 552 (2000) (prior relevant precedent cited by court)