547 F. App'x 513
5th Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiff Craig Moore alleged he developed multiple myeloma from benzene exposure using International Paint (IP) products at Avondale Shipyards (1988–1990); plaintiffs retained Dr. Bhaskar Kura as an expert on cumulative benzene exposure.
- IP moved in limine to exclude Dr. Kura’s testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert; the district court granted the motion, finding Kura’s exposure opinion unreliable for lack of factual support.
- Five days after excluding Kura, the district court granted IP summary judgment because plaintiffs conceded they could not prove essential LPLA elements without Kura’s testimony.
- On appeal, plaintiffs argued the district court improperly excluded Kura’s testimony and erred in granting summary judgment; the Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court reasonably found Kura’s exposure analysis contradicted or unsupported by the record and thus inadmissible under Daubert/Rule 702.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert exposure opinion under Rule 702/Daubert | Kura’s methodology and estimates were reliable and within expert judgment | Kura’s analysis relied on unsupported, contradicted, or speculative factual assumptions | Court: Exclusion affirmed — expert lacked sufficient factual basis; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Reliance on facts not in record (hours, ventilation, respirator use, indoor/outdoor work) | Disputes are for the factfinder; uncertainties do not mandate exclusion | Assumptions were contradicted by payroll records and witness testimony or had no record basis | Court: Opinions based on altered or unsubstantiated facts are inadmissible; Kura’s assumptions were unreliable |
| Effect of expert exclusion on merits (summary judgment) | Exclusion was erroneous; summary judgment should not follow | Without Kura’s testimony plaintiffs cannot prove essential LPLA elements | Court: Plaintiffs conceded inability to prove claims without Kura; summary judgment affirmed |
| Standard of review on expert-admissibility rulings | N/A (appellate review contends district court misapplied Daubert) | District court has broad gatekeeping discretion; review is abuse-of-discretion | Court: Applied abuse-of-discretion standard and found no manifest error |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (district court gatekeeping role to ensure scientific testimony is reliable and relevant)
- Moore v. Ashland Chem. Inc., 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir.) (en banc) (abuse-of-discretion review of expert-admissibility rulings)
- Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2007) (district court has broad discretion to assess sufficiency of facts underlying expert opinion)
- Hathaway v. Bazany, 507 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2007) (existence of sufficient facts is mandatory for admissibility)
- Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 555 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2009) (expert opinion based on insufficient or erroneous information is unreliable)
- Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2002) (when facts are disputed, factfinder may weigh competing expert conclusions)
- Guillory v. Domtar Indus., Inc., 95 F.3d 1320 (5th Cir. 1996) (exclude expert testimony based on altered facts and speculation)