Pluck v. BP Oil Pipeline Co.
640 F.3d 671
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- BP's underground pipeline in Franklin Township experienced five spills between 1948 and 1962 causing soil and groundwater benzene contamination.
- In 1990 BP entered an OEPA agreement to investigate contamination; testing found benzene in wells of nine residents but not at 605 Fairwood.
- Sue and Ray Pluck bought 605 Fairwood in 1996; benzene was detected in their well and a deeper new well was installed in 1996.
- Mrs. Pluck was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in 2002, with recurrences in 2007 and remission by 2009.
- Plucks sued BP in 2008 asserting general and specific causation for NHL from benzene exposure; BP moved to exclude Dr. Dahlgren and for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment, excluding Dahlgren's specific-causation testimony as unreliable under Daubert and struck his untimely supplemental declaration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dahlgren's specific causation opinion was admissible under Daubert. | Dahlgren used differential diagnosis; should be admissible and reliable. | Dahlgren's dose data and methodology were unreliable and not properly disclosed. | Exclusion affirmed; Dahlgren's differential-diagnosis-based specific causation failed Daubert standards. |
| Whether Dahlgren's supplemental declaration, filed after the deadline, should be admitted. | Supplemental diagnosis information should be allowed; discovery deadlines were not strictly binding. | Supplemental declaration was untimely and introduced a new methodology beyond the permitted scope. | Supplemental declaration properly struck; no new reliable methodology admitted. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper in light of lack of reliable general and specific causation evidence. | Differential-diagnosis could establish specific causation; BP should be liable with evidence of exposure. | Without reliable specific causation (and general causation), plaintiff cannot prove prima facie exposure-related NHL. | Summary judgment affirmed; lack of Rule 702-compliant causation evidence supports dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2010) (differential-diagnosis reliability bearings emphasized)
- Best v. Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc., 563 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 2009) (differential-diagnosis may satisfy Rule 702 when reliable)
- Nelson v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 243 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2001) (exposure presence alone insufficient without dose evidence)
- Hardyman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 243 F.3d 255 (6th Cir. 2001) (differential-diagnosis as causation method)
- Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co. (duplicate entry for emphasis), 620 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2010) (see above)
- Meridia Prods. Liab. Litig. v. Abbott Labs., 447 F.3d 861 (6th Cir. 2006) (Daubert gatekeeping and reliability considerations)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (S. Ct. 1999) (flexible Daubert factors for admissibility)
- Nelson v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. (alternative), 243 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2001) (same as above; see entry for clarity)
- Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1980) (Daubert relevance and reliability standards)
- Pride v. BIC Corp., 218 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2000) (timeliness and re-opening of Daubert inquiry considerations)