Summary of a Recent
Judicial
Development in
Environmental Law
FRE 702 and Daubert Form Basis for Court to Exclude
Unreliable and Irrelevant Expert Testimony
Eric H. FoyNational AgLaw Center Research Associate
Summary of Decision
In Bourne ex rel. Bourne v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 85 Fed. App'x 964 (4th Cir. 2004), the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court, which held that the plaintiff's expert testimony regarding the general causation and specific causation of his injuries was neither reliable nor relevant.
Background
In February 1997, the Bournes brought suit on behalf of their son against E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. (DuPont) alleging that exposure to Benlate, an agricultural fungicide produced by DuPont, caused their unborn son to develop severe birth defects. Id. at 965. Mrs. Bourne testified that she applied Benlate to her home garden while she was pregnant "every ten to twelve days from March through late June, 1986" in accord with the product's labeling. Id. She also testified that during application of the fungicide she did not wear protective facial covering or gloves. Id. at 966. Around May 5, 1986, Mrs. Borne became pregnant with son, and she gave birth on January 27, 1987. Id. The child was born "with bilateral clinical anophthalmia (the complete absence of eyes), hypogonadatropic hypogonadism (a pituitary disorder resulting in this case in small stature and underdeveloped genitalia), and mental retardation." Id. The child contended "that his mother's repeated exposure to Benlate during critical periods in his fetal development caused or contributed to his birth defects." Id. At trial, the Bournes presented evidence from two expert witnesses regarding the general and specific causation of child's injuries. Id. at 964. However, the district court excluded the testimony as unreliable under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Id. After excluding the plaintiff's expert witnesses, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Id.
Arguments
The Bournes argued that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of the plaintiff's expert causation witnesses attributing his anophthalmia and related birth defects to Mrs. Bourne's exposure to Benlate during her pregnancy.
Analysis and Holdings
In analyzing the instant case, the court stated that its standard of review was "to review the record and reasons offered by the district court and to reverse only if the 'court has a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.'" Id. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 states in pertinent part that "if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert . . . may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." In other words, the district court acts as the gatekeeper "to assess whether the proffered evidence is sufficiently reliable and relevant." Id. at 967. Courts must balance the liberalization of the expert evidence admission rule of Daubert with the inherent potential of expert evidence to "be both powerful and quite misleading." Id. In applying this balancing test, the court held that "the district court properly exercised its 'gate-keeper' function by focusing on the methodology employed by the experts rather than the conclusions they reached." Id. For this reason, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court.
The case was decided on January 27, 2004.