Marianne Chapman v. The Procter & Gamble Distributing, LLC
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17535
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Marianne Chapman suffers from myelo-pathy with symptoms including neuropathy, anemia, and neutropenia; she alleges Fixodent caused CDM via zinc-induced copper deficiency.
- Chapmans used two to four 68-gram Fixodent tubes weekly for eight years before symptoms emerged (2006–2009).
- P&G Reformulated Fixodent in 1990 with a calcium-zinc compound; zinc’s bioavailability varies by compound, complicating causation.
- MDL coordination in Florida led to pretrial proceedings; Chapmans’ case was the only one in SD Fla. to proceed to trial after transfer orders.
- District court excluded Chapmans’ three general causation and one specific causation experts under Daubert, after a thorough hearing.
- Following exclusion, the district court granted summary judgment for P&G, concluding Chapmans had no admissible expert testimony to prove causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General causation of CDM by Fixodent zinc | Chapmans’ experts show zinc can cause copper deficiency and CDM | No generally accepted evidence; experts fail dose, epidemiology, and background-risk methods | District court properly excluded general-causation experts under Daubert |
| Specific causation of Chapman’s CDM by Fixodent | Differential-diagnosis supports Fixodent as cause | Greenberg failed to rule out alternatives and relied on ill-supported differential diagnosis | District court properly excluded Dr. Greenberg’s specific-causation testimony |
| Reliability of additional alternative-expert sources | Alternative defense experts could testify for Chapmans | Alternative experts not admissible under Daubert or Rule 26; untimely disclosures | No reversible error; alternative sources could not establish causation admissibly |
| Treating physicians as experts | Treating physicians could testify as experts about causation | Treating physicians are fact witnesses, not restrained experts; not properly designated under Rule 26 | Chapmans abandoned treating-physician-as-expert argument; district court within discretion |
| Summary-judgment posture given Daubert order | There were other avenues to prove causation | No admissible expert testimony remained to prove causation | Summary judgment for P&G affirmed; no triable issue in admissible expert evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- McClain v. Metabolife Int'l., Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) (two-category Daubert framework for toxic-substance cases; epidemiology emphasis)
- Hendrix ex rel. G.P. v. Evenflo Co., 609 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2010) (two-part general and specific causation analysis)
- Guinn v. AstraZeneca Pharm. LP, 602 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2010) (differential diagnosis and background risk considerations in causation)
- OFS Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., 549 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2008) (adverseness in interlocutory appeals; case-dispositive considerations)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (gatekeeping flexibility; not a rigid checklist)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (establishes gatekeeping reliability standard for expert testimony)
- Kilpatrick v. Breg, Inc., 613 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2010) (reliability standards and background-risk considerations in Daubert analyses)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (gatekeeping and admissibility tied to scientific validity and fit)