FREE CASE REVIEW

Fixodent, Daubert & Expert Causation

This entry was posted in Case Watch℠ Defective Product Personal Injury and tagged daubert expert expert causation fixodent florida on by

Fixodent, Daubert & Expert Causation: A recent a case in the United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division ruled on a Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiffs’ General Causation Experts.

The Fixodent, Daubert & Expert Causation Act case documents what many toxic tort type cases may potentially be faced with during the case – problems with causation: experts’ analyses do not make a scientifically reliable connection between the product and the injury.

The Court ruled: Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Plaintiffs’ General Causation Experts is GRANTED in part.

A brief summary of the facts include:

  • As previously noted, “Plaintiffs have put forth a superficially appealing hypothesis that prolonged use of very large amounts of Fixodent may cause copper deficiency.” In re Denture Cream Prods. Liab. Litig., 795 F. Supp. 2d at 1367.
  • Yet “the law requires more than a general theme to support causation — it requires a scientifically reliable connection.” Hendrix v. Evenflo Co., Inc., 255 F.R.D. 568, 600 (N.D. Fla. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
  • The Fixodent Blockade Study, the cohort study, and Plaintiffs’ experts’ analyses do not make that scientifically reliable connection. While promising on its face, the “new evidence since Chapman” relies on factually inaccurate data and unsupported assumptions, and generally lacks the sound scientific basis and intellectual rigor required by Daubert.
  • These experts’ opinions also leave significant gaps in Plaintiffs’ general causation theory. “To admit the plaintiffs’ evidence, the Court would have to make several scientifically unsupported `leaps of faith’ in the causal chain.
  • The Daubert rule requires more…. `The courtroom is not the place for scientific guesswork, even the inspired sort. Law lags science; it does not lead it.'” Rider, 295 F.3d at 1202 (alteration added) (quoting Rosen v. Ciba-Geiga Corp., 78 F.3d 316, 319 (7th Cir. 1996)).

To find out more on the case, see Case No. 09-2051-MD-ALTONAGA – January 28, 2015.

FREE CASE REVIEWCONTACT US

At the Gooch Law Firm, we pride ourselves on providing our clients reliable representation for even the most challenging cases. If you have been injured by a product, please contact our office at 1.844.329.5955.

WE ARE HERE TO HELP YOU PROTECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS