Linda Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
747 F.3d 1193
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Messick was diagnosed with breast cancer in August 2000 and treated with Zometa from May 7 to November 14, 2002.
- Zometa is a bisphosphonate used to treat skeletal-related conditions in cancer patients.
- In November 2005, dentists diagnosed Messick with osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) related to bisphosphonate use, i.e., BRONJ per AAOMS definition, with BRONJ lasting over eight weeks and no jaw radiation history.
- Messick’s BRONJ healed by October 2008; she sued Novartis for various product-liability theories and loss of consortium.
- Messick proffered Dr. Jackson’s causation testimony linking bisphosphonate treatment to BRONJ; district court excluded it as irrelevant/unreliable, and granted summary judgment for Novartis.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion, reversed, and remanded for admission of Dr. Jackson’s causation testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Jackson’s causation testimony was admissible under Rule 702/Daubert | Testimony is relevant and based on reliable differential diagnosis grounded in experience. | Testimony was irrelevant or unreliable and should be excluded as junk science. | Abuse of discretion; testimony admissible and reliable. |
| Whether CA substantial-factor causation suffices for specific causation | Causation can be shown if bisphosphonates were a substantial factor. | Cannot determine which factor caused ONJ; lack of specificity defeats causation. | Testimony adequate; substantial-factor causation supports admissibility. |
| Whether a differential-diagnosis basis can support causation testimony | Differential diagnosis from extensive clinical experience is acceptable to prove causation. | Need explicit scientific basis for every conclusion; not acceptable. | District court erred; differential-diagnosis testimony admissible when grounded in valid methodology and experience. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (gatekeeping to ensure relevance and reliability of expert testimony)
- Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2010) (applies Daubert with flexible, non-exhaustive factors)
- Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., 740 F.3d 457 (9th Cir. 2014) (gatekeeping role to exclude junk science)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (expanded gatekeeping into technical and non-scientific expert testimony)
- Clausen v. M/V NEW CARISSA, 339 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2003) (must provide reasons for rejecting hypotheses with scientifically valid basis)
- Kennedy v. Collagen Corp., 161 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 1998) (differential-diagnosis causation can be reliable)
- In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCD Litig., 916 F.2d 829 (3d Cir. 1990) (Daubert framework applied to medical causation evidence)