Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03350/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03350-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Howard J. Polski
Appellant
Sheryl L. Polski
Appellant
The Quigley Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3350

___________

Howard J. Polski; Sheryl L. Polski, * 

* 

Appellants, * 

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

The Quigley Corporation, * 

* 

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 14, 2008

Filed: August 13, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Howard and Sheryl Polski (collectively "the Polskis") brought suit against the

Quigley Corporation ("Quigley"), alleging that they suffered severe and permanent

impairment of their senses of taste and smell due to their use of Cold-Eeze, a nasal

spray made and distributed by Quigley for the treatment of cold symptoms. The

district court1

 granted Quigley's motion to exclude the opinion and testimony of the

Polskis' sole causation expert. The court then granted Quigley's motion for summary

Appellate Case: 07-3350 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2008 Entry ID: 3460732
2

The directions on the Cold-Eeze packaging, in relevant part, stated:

• Prime the pump by pumping several times into a clean tissue until

COLD-EEZE® Nasal Spray dispenses

• Before use, blow your nose to clean your nostrils

• Insert the tip of the pump approximately 1/8" into one nostril and

hold the other nostril closed

• Spray once into each nostril and inhale through the nose slowly

and deeply

• Repeat every 2–4 hours at least six (6) times per day

• Continue use for an additional 48 hours after symptoms subside.

3

An otolaryngologist is a doctor specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of

disorders of the ear, nose, and throat.

-2-

judgment. The Polskis appeal the court's decision excluding the expert testimony and

the resulting summary judgment. We affirm.

I. Background

Because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we describe the facts

in the light most favorable to the Polskis, the nonmoving party. Hervey v. County of

Koochiching, 527 F.3d 711, 715 (8th Cir. 2008). The Polskis, brother and sister, each

used Cold-Eeze, as directed,2

 for several days in December 2003, to treat symptoms

associated with the common cold. The Polskis each experienced a burning sensation

in their nostrils and sneezing with each application of the spray. In mid-January 2004

they both realized that they had lost their sense of taste, after confiding to one another

over a meal that they could not taste the food. In April 2004, the Polskis visited an

otolaryngologist,3

 who found no physical causes for their sensory loss.

The Polskis filed suit against Quigley, asserting claims for fraud, negligence,

strict products liability, breach of express and implied warranties, and violations of

Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325F.69, alleging that the use of Cold-Eeze caused their sensory

loss. To prove that Cold-Eeze caused their impairments, which was essential for each

Appellate Case: 07-3350 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2008 Entry ID: 3460732
-3-

of their claims, the Polskis offered the expert opinion of Dr. Bruce Jafek, M.D., a

professor of otolaryngology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. Dr.

Jafek authored two reports in this case, one for each of the Polskis. In each report, Dr.

Jafek opined that: (1) Cold-Eeze, when used as directed, comes into contact with the

olfactory epithelium—the "smell tissue" located high inside the human nose; (2) the

active ingredient in Cold-Eeze, zinc gluconate, is toxic to the olfactory epithelium; (3)

Cold-Eeze, when used as directed, delivers a sufficient amount of zinc gluconate to

the olfactory epithelium to damage the sense of smell; (4) the damage that the zinc

gluconate in Cold-Eeze caused to the olfactory epithelium is permanent in some cases;

and (5) the zinc gluconate in Cold-Eeze, and not something else, such as a virus,

caused the Polskis to lose their sense of smell. 

Quigley conceded that Dr. Jafek was qualified as a nasal health expert, but

moved to exclude Dr. Jafek's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). In its motion, Quigley

argued that Dr. Jafek's opinion was not based upon scientifically reliable evidence or

testing but was merely an untested speculative theory. The district court agreed and

struck Dr. Jafek's expert testimony. The court concluded that Dr. Jafek's causation

opinion rested on the unproven premise that Cold-Eeze, when used as directed, comes

into contact with the olfactory epithelium in humans. Consequently, his opinions were

not sufficiently reliable to be admitted under Rule 702.

Because all of the Polski's claims required proof of causation and their

causation evidence was based solely on Dr. Jafek's expert opinion, having concluded

that Dr. Jafek's opinion was inadmissible, the court granted Quigley's motion for

summary judgment. The Polskis now appeal, arguing that the district court erred in

precluding Dr. Jafek's expert opinion.

Appellate Case: 07-3350 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/13/2008 Entry ID: 3460732
-4-

II. Discussion

We review the district court's exclusion of expert testimony for an abuse of

discretion. Sappington v. Skyjack, Inc., 512 F.3d 440, 448 (8th Cir. 2008). Federal

Rule of Evidence 702 provides:

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 by knowledge, skill, experience, training,

or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise,

if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the

testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the

witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the

case.

When faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, the trial court must

make "a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying

the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology

properly can be applied to the facts in issue." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592–93. 

We recently explained Rule 702 and the Daubert standard, as follows:

The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule

of Evidence 702; under Rule 702 the trial judge acts as a "gatekeeper"

screening evidence for relevance and reliability. Daubert, 509 U.S. at

589, 113 S. Ct. 2786. "Rule 702 reflects an attempt to liberalize the rules

governing the admission of expert testimony. The rule clearly is one of

admissibility rather than exclusion." Lauzon v. Senco Prods., Inc., 270

F.3d 681, 686 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

"The exclusion of an expert's opinion is proper only if it is so

fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury."

Wood v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 112 F.3d 306, 309 (8th Cir. 1997)

(internal quotations and citation omitted).

Appellate Case: 07-3350 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/13/2008 Entry ID: 3460732
-5-

A district court should apply a three-part test when screening

testimony under Rule 702.

First, evidence based on scientific, technical, or other

specialized knowledge must be useful to the finder of fact

in deciding the ultimate issue of fact. This is the basic rule

of relevancy. Second, the proposed witness must be

qualified to assist the finder of fact. Third, the proposed

evidence must be reliable or trustworthy in an evidentiary

sense, so that, if the finder of fact accepts it as true, it

provides the assistance the finder of fact requires.

Lauzon, 270 F.3d at 686 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

In Daubert, the Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive list of

factors a district court should consider when performing its gatekeeper

function, including,

1) whether the theory or technique can be (and has been)

tested; 2) whether the theory or technique has been

subjected to peer review and publication; 3) the known or

potential rate of error; and 4) whether the theory has been

generally accepted.

Lauzon, 270 F.3d at 686.

Subsequent cases have proposed additional factors, including,

whether the expertise was developed for litigation or naturally flowed

from the expert's research; whether the proposed expert ruled out other

alternative explanations; and whether the proposed expert sufficiently

connected the proposed testimony with the facts of the case. Id. at

686–87.

Sappington, 512 F.3d at 448–49.

Appellate Case: 07-3350 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/13/2008 Entry ID: 3460732
-6-

In this case, the Polskis contend that the district court abused its discretion in

excluding Dr. Jafek's expert testimony. They assert that the district court went beyond

its "gatekeeping" duty and invaded the province of the jury by weighing the parties'

disputed arguments of causation. 

Quigley did not contest Dr. Jafek's qualifications to be an expert of

otolaryngology, the anatomy of the nose, and the senses of taste and smell. Instead

they challenged Dr. Jafek's opinion that Quigley's product, when used as directed, puts

zinc gluconate on a person's olfactory epithelium. Based on his own knowledge and

expertise, his research, the research of others, and his observation that Cold-Eeze

delivers a straight line spray capable of traveling several feet, Dr. Jafek concluded that

the Polski's use of Cold-Eeze caused their sensory loss. Dr. Jafek opined that the spray

emitted from the Cold-Eeze bottle traveled into the nasal cavity and through the

straight passageway to the olfactory epithelium, resulting in the zinc ions in the spray

coming into direct contact with the olfactory epithelium of the user; Dr. Jafek's other

conclusions all rely on the validity of this premise. Albeit conceivable that Quigley's

spray bottle could expel some quantity of the medication the full distance in the nasal

passage to the olfactory epithelium, Dr. Jafek never tested this theory—nor did anyone

else. 

The district court concluded that this untested theory was "not sufficiently

reliable to be admitted under Rule 702." Polski v. Quigley Corp., No. 04-4199, 2007

WL 2580550, at *5 (D. Minn. Sept. 5, 2007). After a thorough review, we find no

abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to exclude Dr. Jafek's testimony.

Dr. Jafek's causation theory is based on his untested belief that Cold-Eeze, when

used as directed, travels in a straight-line liquid movement capable of reaching the

olfactory epithelium through the nasal passage, allowing the zinc ions in the drug to

Appellate Case: 07-3350 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/13/2008 Entry ID: 3460732
4

The same scientific research that Dr. Jafek primarily relies upon for the

proposition that anosmia (the loss of smell) can result from zinc ions coming into

direct contact with the olfactory epithelium, reached its conclusion after conducting

an experiment in which a zinc-sulfate solution (not zinc-gluconate) was applied

directly to the olfactory epithelium by inserting a long, needle-like sprayer "upward

along the septum until definitely past the middle turbinate." Max M. Peet, Dean H.

Echols, Harry J. Richter, The Chemical Prophylaxis for Poliomyelitis: The Technic

of Applying Zinc Sulfate Intranasally, 108 JAMA 2184, 2186 (1937). An illustration

within this journal article depicts such a sprayer carefully inserted high into the nose.

Id. The researchers explained:

[I]n practically all instances the solution did not go above the middle

turbinate if an ordinary atomizer was used with the tip of the spray

introduced only slightly within the nostril. . . . It is evident that to be

effective the spray must be directly applied to the olfactory area. We

wish to especially emphasize this point. Ordinary spraying with the

atomizer tip introduced below the middle turbinate will not suffice

except in isolated instances.

Id.

Moreover, Dr. Jafek's own earlier writings discuss the difficulty in accessing

the olfactory mucosa (epithelium) of the human nose:

[O]lfactory mucosa is almost anatomically inaccessible in living humans.

It is sheltered, for good reason, as it contains naked nerve endings in

direct contact with the outside world, which proximally communicate

with the brain. To reach it, the biopsy instrument must pass

approximately 7 cm deep into the nostril, the terminal portion blindly,

into a 1.0 mm crevasse between the adjacent nasal bones

(septum/perpendicular plate and superior turbinate of ethmoid). Direct

visualization with even the smallest telescope (Machida, 1.5 mm) with

coordinated biopsy is impossible.

Bruce W. Jafek, Ultrastructure of Human Nasal Mucosa, 98 Laryngoscope 1576,

-7-

come into contact with the difficult to access olfactory epithelium.4

 The Polskis admit

Appellate Case: 07-3350 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/13/2008 Entry ID: 3460732
1576 (1983).

5

In Daubert, the Supreme Court stated:

Ordinarily, a key question to be answered in determining whether a

theory or technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of

fact will be whether it can be (and has been) tested. . . . Another pertinent

consideration is whether the theory or technique has been subjected to

peer review and publication. . . . Additionally, in the case of a particular

scientific technique, the court ordinarily should consider the known or

potential rate of error . . . . Finally, "general acceptance" can yet have a

bearing on the inquiry.

Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593–94.

-8-

that Dr. Jafek had not scientifically tested this theory. However, the Polskis assert that

such testing could not ethically be conducted on live humans because research has

shown that zinc may cause loss of smell and taste if it comes into contact with the

olfactory epithelium. As the district court observed, however, Dr. Jafek's theory could

have easily and ethically been tested by placing a substance with similar dispersal

qualities to Cold-Eeze but lacking zinc or any other potential toxin into a Cold-Eeze

bottle and administering the substance to participants as directed by Cold-Eeze's

instructions. Following such an experiment, participants could be examined to

determine whether the administered substance actually came into contact with the

olfactory epithelium.

In short, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's exclusion of Dr.

Jafek's testimony. Dr. Jafek's causation theory relied on an unproven and indeed

untested premise. The district court applied Rule 702 following Daubert's guidance,

noting that "because Dr. Jafek's theory has not been tested at all, it has never been

subjected to peer review and publication, nor has it been generally accepted in the

scientific community, nor does it have a known or potential rate of error." Polski,

2007 WL 2580550, at *5. These are all valid considerations under Daubert.5

Appellate Case: 07-3350 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/13/2008 Entry ID: 3460732
6

We note that Dr. Jafek's theory of causation offered in this case has been

offered by plaintiffs in several other cases involving anosmia allegedly caused by the

use of Zicam, another nasally-inhaled cold remedy containing zinc gluconate; in each

of those cases, Dr. Jafek's testimony was excluded. See Lusch v. Matrixx Initiatives,

Inc., No. 05-292, 2007 WL 2816203 (D. Or. Sept. 25, 2007) (granting defendant's

motions to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment, ruling there was no

reasonable scientific evidence supporting Dr. Jafek's theory); O'Hanlon v. Matrixx

Initiatives, Inc., No. 04-10391, 2007 WL 2446496 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2007); Benkwith

v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (M.D. Ala. 2006) (same); Hans v.

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., No. 04-540, 2006 WL 5229820 at *8 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 29,

2006) (excluding Dr. Jafek's expert testimony regarding Zicam's causation of anosmia

because he "failed to show any of the steps which he says are necessary in order to

cause permanent anosmia in a human" and therefore his testimony regarding the cause

of plaintiff's anosmia "is unreliable and therefore inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid.

702"); Sutherland v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., No. 04-0129, slip op. at *4–5 (N.D. Ala.

Nov. 7, 2006) ("Despite this court's admiration for Dr. Jafek's professional

accomplishments, it concludes that the methods and procedures he employed are not

sufficiently reliable under Daubert and Rule 702 to allow him to share his opinions

with a jury").

-9-

The Polskis had the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that Dr. Jafek's testimony was admissible under Rule 702. Marmo v. Tyson Fresh

Meats, Inc. 457 F.3d 748, 757–58 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at

589–90). This required sufficient proof that Dr. Jafek's testimony was "the product of

reliable principles and methods," and that he "applied the principles and methods

reliably to the facts of the case." Fed. R. Evid. 702. The district court explained that

its decision "does not mean that Dr. Jafek's theory is necessarily wrong; it simply

means that the theory meets none of the indicia of reliability identified in Daubert and

therefore must be excluded." Polski, 2007 WL 2580550, at *5. The district court

concluded that Dr. Jafek's testimony was not sufficiently reliable and too speculative

to be presented to the jury. We do not consider this conclusion an abuse of discretion.6

As all of Dr. Jafek's other opinions relating to causation relied on his untested

opinion that Cold-Eeze, when used as directed, comes into direct contact with the

Appellate Case: 07-3350 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/13/2008 Entry ID: 3460732
-10-

olfactory epithelium, the court excluded the remainder of Dr. Jafek's causation

testimony. Id. at *6. Because the Polskis' claims required proof of causation and they

relied solely on Dr. Jafek's testimony to establish such causation, once that evidence

was excluded, the Polskis could not make a prima facie case. Thus, the district court's

grant of summary judgment in favor of Quigley was proper.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-3350 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/13/2008 Entry ID: 3460732