Tumlinson v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
2013 Del. LEXIS 596
| Del. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Tumlinson and Ontiveros) sued AMD alleging parents’ workplace chemical exposures at AMD’s Texas semiconductor plants caused congenital birth defects in their children.
- Plaintiffs proffered Dr. Linda Frazier, an epidemiologist, to testify that workplace chemical exposures caused the birth defects; AMD moved to exclude her testimony under D.R.E. 702.
- The Superior Court held a four-day Daubert hearing and initially excluded Dr. Frazier’s testimony as not relevant under Delaware procedure because her methodology purportedly could not establish causation under Texas substantive law; parties entered final judgment to permit appeal.
- This Court affirmed the choice of Texas substantive law and remanded for the Superior Court to assess reliability under Delaware’s D.R.E. 702/Daubert standards; on remand the trial court excluded the testimony as unreliable.
- The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the exclusion for abuse of discretion and affirmed, concluding the trial court reasonably found significant methodological gaps (lack of specificity as to causative agents, failure to distinguish exposures, conclusions developed for litigation, and insufficiently articulated use of Bradford-Hill/weight-of-evidence approaches).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility — reliability under D.R.E. 702 | Dr. Frazier’s synthesis of peer-reviewed studies reliably supports causation | Dr. Frazier’s methodology has analytical gaps and is unreliable | Court: No abuse of discretion in excluding testimony as unreliable |
| Admissibility — relevance under D.R.E. 702 | Testimony is relevant to causation | Methodology fails to meet Texas causation standards, so testimony is not relevant | Court did not decide relevance on appeal (reliability ruling dispositive) |
| Use of epidemiologic methods (Bradford-Hill, weight-of-evidence) | These accepted methods justify her conclusions | Expert failed to articulate how she applied these methods to the evidence here | Court: Expert did not sufficiently explain her analytic process; exclusion proper |
| Use of non-Delaware authorities/Texas substantive law in gatekeeping | Plaintiffs argued reliability should be assessed under Delaware/Daubert | Trial court consulted Texas cases in earlier relevancy analysis but applied Daubert on remand | Court: Trial court should not have relied on Texas causation precedents but reached same outcome after correct Daubert analysis; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial judge is gatekeeper to ensure expert testimony is relevant and reliable; factors for assessing scientific validity)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert principles apply to all expert testimony and judge has broad latitude in assessing reliability)
- M.G. Bancorporation, Inc. v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d 513 (Del. 1999) (Delaware adoption of Daubert standard for D.R.E. 702)
- Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (Texas standard on causation evaluated in trial court’s earlier relevancy analysis)
- Merck & Co. v. Garza, 347 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2011) (Texas authority on expert causation reliability considered by trial court)
- Gen. Motors Corp. v. Grenier, 981 A.2d 531 (Del. 2009) (standard of appellate review: trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)