Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc.
639 F.3d 11
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Milward and Milward claim benzene exposure caused Milward's rare leukemia (APL).
- Evidence phase bifurcated: focus on general causation under Rule 702; second phase would cover specific causation if admitted.
- District court excluded Dr. Smith's general causation testimony after a four-day Daubert hearing.
- Appellate standard: abuse of discretion in Rule 702 determinations; de novo for legal questions.
- Court held Dr. Smith's testimony should be admitted and left to jury to weigh with other evidence.
- Remand for proceedings consistent with opinion; exclusion reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of general causation testimony | Smith's method is reliable and aids the jury | Testimony lacks reliability under Daubert | Exclusion reversed; testimony admissible |
| Reliability of weight-of-the-evidence methodology | Methodology is scientifically sound | Methodology may be unreliable or speculative | Methodology deemed reliable under Daubert; admissible |
| Epidemiological evidence sufficiency | Lack of statistically significant data but supporting context exists | Statistical significance required | Lack of significance not fatal; jury may weigh as part of total evidence |
| Concept of biological plausibility | Biological plausibility is a legitimate Hill factor | Court treated plausibility as sufficient grounds for causation | District court erred; biology plausibility fits within Hill framework |
| District court’s gatekeeping scope | Gatekeeper should not substitute scientific debate for admissibility | Court appropriately evaluated data and conclusions | Court erred; admission allowed and remand for trial on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping reliability standard for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (fact-specific reliability; applies to all experts, not just scientific)
- General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (abuse-of-discretion review; not all hypotheses must be accepted)
- Ruiz-Troche v. Pepsi Cola of P.R. Bottling Co., 161 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 1998) (requires case-specific analysis of expert testimony under Daubert)
- Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust v. Colburn, 156 F.3d 248 (1st Cir. 1998) (discusses weight-of-the-evidence and admissibility analysis)
- Beaudette v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., 462 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2006) (emphasizes case-specific assessment of reliability under Daubert)