go through it and it's as complex case as you know may please the court the district court rejected submissions and were not authorized necessary discovery undermining to the ship courts ability to make an appropriate ruling compound the falsified documents by defendant promoting an adequate record contrary to the district court and well documented at silk and saw that exposure caused inflammatory response is triggering a unity confirmed by epidemiology multiple journals and even i ask confirms that nanoparticles are more toxic within the semiconductor industry supporting the science in the timeframes of compounding exposures as class expert dr wong explained odd ratios or relative risk are well above the two point zero standard and have been confirmed both parties that the risk is more than double proving causation defense expert dr hofman failed to appraise the court of his prior published conclusions which undermines his declaration in this matter dr hochman confirmed in past publications that statistically significant differences in regard to wagner's patients have a greater degree of exposure to fumes insecticides in particular airborne matter others have been suggested the inhalation of grain particles may increase the rise in developing wag to inhaled materials hodgman records that this record had access to as males vastly noted there is considerable literature in our field demonstrating a connection between exposure to silica in the development of g p a in my opinion a high degree dr wayne scientific analysis a review is reliable plausible we did factual biologically possible incredible supported by in vitro in vivo studies epidemiology peer review in the current pinions of the medical field identifying causation dover neither requires or empowers the trial court to determine which of the several competing scientific theories has best products what do you what is your understanding as to that and what is your understanding of why the district court found your expert unreliable they were being misled about the facts and that they the records were becoming gaps so when the during the the positions there were specific questions in science that was being detail and then they would come back at the deposition and request a certain type of questioning or saying just to get an answer but when the science was being detailed that wasn't given to the lower court and she rejected that information to be  and she confirmed it in an document i believe to zero six of their electronic file that she was not going to accept blame that on us though the defendant as well never submitted to epidemiology or the medical references not even the journals or studies for  i think it would be no word no word or sandals he did the same scenario he oh he comes down through the facts but then he changes his conclusion so his conclusions are always against the science but the science exists and that's the hard part here even their expert dr hoffman who admitted to the science in his writings fifteen years ago in two thousand and one when he wrote this book he identified that the science was well dr hardman was one of the first ones who identified centers up to d b ology out there so as the record was progressing the answers were coming out but in the first depositions of the doctors it was being tailored to negate the i would ask that the circle be identified it because it's part of the cause and i was interesting to note that the prior court hearing that we heard about the video footage i had video footage on my incident in the defendant it and that's confirmed in the record as well in labor laws tanner karen i and radiation should be noted as well so and my conclusion too to sum this up for my one minute remodel at the end granting plan a summary judgment or at minimum remaining this matter back to the district court is necessary were placed claims are fully supported with science and law in mortality rates are three hundred percent higher than the general population the district court may not determine which is sever competing scientific theories has best province or take sides on questions that are currently the focus of extensive scientific research in debate in which reasonable scientists can clearly disagree those limits on gate keeping expressively prohibit judges from asserting the constitutional of the fact finder by deciding which of the two conflicting expert views is more my name is amanda rice and i'm here on behalf of defendant apple e's global foundries u s inc and applied materials inc mr result ledgers that he contract at an auto immune disease called g p a after an alleged chemical exposure a globalfoundries facility the only question reached below was general that there was no question of the exposure the question was what causation is the court never got that far the proceedings so as to address general causation first so you know in terms of the exposure will take what he alleges in the complaint is true but there is a dispute as to that but the general causation question is whether exposure to any is and what is what is the law of the general clause nation what is an element of the plaintiff's case at the plaintiff has a number of claims a couple of them were dismissed and then a couple of them are the one we're focused on the  thought was the summary judgment was granted because of the failure of general causation what is the substantive law require with respect to proof of general causation what says that when i look to find i think i'm working on a most is the best decision from this court on that case i can give you a citation if it's helpful though it's in our brief in a couple of places and has at some three zero three after two sixty eight is  fairly detailed discussion and i think that the key is that's different from specific cause ation which is whether a particular exposure in fact caused disease and as it happens and a lot of context general causation isn't disputed you know it's clear perhaps that  especially for instance can cause certain diseases and here's here's my here's what troubles me about this case we don't generally in the law even in criminal cases operate on the requirements of some kind of absolute certainty beyond reasonable doubt is not beyond any doubt civil cases we're doing the best we can to find facts in a world of uncertainty here what your experts say is this is a world of uncertainty there is no established cause at all right must because we don't know what it is with any degree of certainty what we do seem to know from studies that i think are acknowledged by both sides is that there is at least some kind of correlation between at least heavy exposure to silica and over the long period of time and diseases that are not dissimilar in all ways to this  try to say that is possibly what makes it necessary that there be some definite scientific absolute determination that a is the cause of the before a jury can assess whether in the way we would decide anything else what color the light was in an auto accident case that hard to be sure but looks like this is the way it was tilts a little more in that direction this is not a case where your experts say there is a cause it's something else it's not this kind of thing couldn't happen and he loses his purported experts are just totally out to lunch it's a question of we don't know what really does this how how certain do we need to be in order to allow this case to go to effect one yeah i think the answer is not certain well there's two standards here right and i think the dobber standard is really the most relevant one which is to say plaintiffs who's represented by coun below had to come forward with some admissible evidence sufficient for a reasonable fact finder to find that a certain kind of exposure is capable of causing a certain kind of disease and i agree with your honor that that doesn't have to be to a in fact i would go as far as to say there doesn't have to be a published study reaching that conclusion and what does require however is a reliable methodology and there is such a methodology it's called the bradford hill criteria for looking at you know a body of literature where and i guess to take only slight issue with the way you phrase the state of the literature i would say some studies have found an association between silica and a broader class of diseases but some studies have found no association affirmatively in the bradford hill criteria that would be a way of assessing all of those studies and deciding whether global the balance of th asian or does not that's correct and it looks at such things as the strength of the association its consistency temporal relationship between the exposure and the disease and there's a good discussion of this  care brand page for seventy two of the appendix if that's helpful i'm not i'm not even saying that's the only methodology that would work for that but you have to but barbara requires and what the district court is tasked with  looking at purported expert testimony and making sure that a scientific methodology was applied to reach the opinion and did the district court apply something like the bradford hill approach and decide that that's then wouldn't it be incumbent on the district court to say something like not that i've redone that analysis right i think you're right because i'm as good a scientist as you are but this is what the experts have done do that kind of thing or any other sort of reliable methodology and so the district court i sort of had read the district court's decision as saying the  experts failed to apply the right kind of methodology in deciding whether these various studies that they purported to rely on or persuasive in light of the totality of the literature i thought the district court was saying that none of those studies show causation in some definite way i think the district court gave the experts here every benefit of the doubt which is part of why the opinion is so thorough and detailed so for example with respect to dr wong the district court looked at his qualifications and said ok this isn't someone who does this sort of i think that the plaintiff's experts credentials  e the strongest for being able to make these evaluations yeah and so so then the district court nevertheless went on to look at you know not each individual study but the experts methodology the experts reasoning so what dr wong said is i think a specific substance no celica for instance causes or causes g p a cited one study for that and so the district court in the absence of any other proffered methodology by dr wong looked at that study and what it said and found that there was too large of an analytical gap that's the language from so i think if  dr wang had proffered some other methodology aside from this study shows this thing that i'm concluding the court could well have evaluated that i think there just was none and so the court in an effort to give everything everybody thought of the doubt here looked at the studies the experts the proffered experts cited in support of their claims and explained why they didn't actually support those conclusions  identities us put it that way and the word identified it just as much it's interesting that the odds ratios are three point five to one hundred thousand of them i add ratios rang from three to one hundred thousand for my disease and secondly about the epidemiology the epidemiology was confirmed and this was one of the journals that was withheld to the last moment while the other doctors never had this in front of them to testify to this i actually spoke with mr miller took them ten what the judge justice lynch just described about i will say the odds ratios but i want to say the odds ratios about the rarities and how come it's not documented and then secondly it describes the exact fact that  mrs rice was detailing to you that they answered in this in no word it caused great against what she just told you thank you thank you you both will reserve that being the last case on