### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50244

M A X W E L L S , Pl ai nt i f f - Appe l l ant

ve r s us SM I TH K LIN E B E E C H A M C O R PO R A TIO N , doing busi nes s as G l axoS m i t h K l i n e, D efen da n t - A pp el l ee

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct C ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ct of T exas

B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P A T R IC KE
. H IG G IN B O T H A M , C i rcui t Ju dg e: M ax W el l s i nvoked di ve rsi t y j uri sdi c t i on and c om pl ai ned t hat G la x o S m ith K lin e h a d fa ile d to w a r n h im th a t o n e o f its d r u g s –R e q u ip –co u ld
m ak e hi m gam bl e aw ay m i l l i on s. In sup port, W el l s prof fered t est i m on y f

rom th r e e e x p e r ts w h o w o u ld o p in e th a t R e q u ip ca n ca u s e p a th o lo g ic a l g a m b lin g in t he g e ne r alpo pul at i o n. The c o m pa ny m o ve d f o r s um m ar y j udg m e n t , a r gui ng t h at t h e experts ’ t est i m on y di d n ot pass sc i en t i f i c m u st er. Th e di st ri ct court ag r e e d –ho l di ng t hate ve n i f t he c o ur t a dm i t t e d t he e xp e r t t e s t i m o ny, t he
o pi ni on s woul d no t s uf f i c e t o c r e at e a fac t q ue s t i o n a bo ut g e ne r alc aus at i o n, United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 22, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-50244 Document: 00511058145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 50244

Daubertv. Mer rell Dow P harms., In c. , 5 0 9U .S
. 5 7 9( 1 9 9 3 ). 1 2 be c aus e t he e xp e r t s ’ c o nc l us i o ns w e r e no t s c i e nt i f i c al l y r e l i ab l e . W e l l s a ppe al e d,
an d w e af

f i rm on t h e al t erna t i ve D au bert g r o und pr e s e nt e d t o us : b e c aus e t he 1 exp ert s’opi n i on s are n ot sc i en t i f i cal l y rel i able, t h e t est i m on y i s i n ad m i ssibl e – l eaving the l i abil i t y cup board bare.
I. A. D octor M a x W ell s ra n a s u cces sful pa th ology cl i n i c bu t i n 20 0 0 f elli l lw i th P arkinson’ s di sease. W el l s began t ak i n g M i rapex , a dru g m ad e by an un rel ated t h i rd- pa rt y m an u fact u rer. M i rapex i s a t yp e of “ dop am i n e agon i st , ” a cl ass of d r u g s t h a t s t i mu l a t e s t h e d o p a mi n e r e c e p t o r s i n t h e b r a i n t o a l l e v i a t e s y mp t o ms o f P a r k in s o n ’ s . D u e to th e n e u r o lo g ic a l d is e a s e ’ s p r o g r e s s io n , W e lls h a d to s e ll p a r t o f h is clin ic in 2 0 0 1 , a n d in 2 0 0 2 h e re tir e d
. In 2 0 0 5 , W e lls s o ld h is
r e ma i n i n g i n t e r e s t i n t h e c l i n i c f o r a s i z e a b l e s u m. S i n ce t h e 197 0s, W el l s had t ravel ed regu l arl y t o L as V ega s. H e enj oyed g a m b lin g , a n d h e cla im s to h a v e k e p t h is lo s s e s u n d e r co n tr o l
. A f te r h is di agn osi s, t h ou gh , W el l s beg an to l ose m ore an d m ore m on ey. In 200 4, he tal ked t o hi s doct or abou t an art i cl e h e saw w arn i n g t h at M i rapex m i gh t cause probl em ga m b l i n g. A t th a t p oin t W ell s h a d a l rea d y l ost a s m u ch a s $ 2 m illio n . In
r e s po ns e , hi s do c t o r i n Oct o be r 2 004 p re s c r i be d W e l l s a di f fe r e nt do pa m i ne a g o n is t –th is tim e R e q u ip (g e n e r ic a lly ca lle d r o p in ir o le ), th e d r u g a t is s u e in t hi s c as e. Requi p’ s l abeldi d not w ar n about gam bl i ng. W e l l s ’ s g am bl i ng ur ge s t e m po r ar i l y s ubs i de d b ut t he n c am e b ac k wi t h a
v e n g e a n c e . F r o m S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 5 (w h e n h e r e c e iv e d f in a l p a y m e n t o n t h e s a le Case: 09-50244 Document: 00511058145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 50244

Someof thes e los se s cam e fro m onli ne gambl ing. 2 GlaxoSmith Klinerefe rs to itself as GSK, a co nvention we ado pt. 3 The parti es i ntercha ngeab lycall the ga mblingp r oblem “co mpulsive” and 4 “p ath ol ogic al, ” b u t th e me dicallyp ro pe r te rmi s “path ol ogic al. ” B oth parti es a gre e th at Tex as substantive l aw applie s inthis dive rsityca se. 5 See Ackerman n v. Wy et h Ph arms. , 52 6 F .3d 203 , 20 8 (5 th Cir. 2 008) (invo kingT ex as 6 l a w); s e ealso Wrightv. F ord Mot or C

o. , 50 8 F .3d 2 63, 275(5th Cir. 2 007) (same). “The Supre me Court of Texa s, like many courts, ha s equat ed th e ‘ more-likely -tha n-no t’ causati on requirement toa more tha n 50% probabilityth at a de fenda nt’s wrongful conduct caused the h armo r in

j u ry .” You ng v. Mem’l Hermann Hosp. S ys. , 57 3 F .3d 2 33, 235(5th Cir. 2 009) (per cur iam) (c itin g Merrell Dow P harms., In c. v. Havner , 9 5 3S .W .2 d 7 0 6 , 7 1 5

– 1 7(T ex . 1 9 9 7))
. Knightv. K

irby In land Marine In c. , 482 F.3d347 , 351 (5t h Cir
. 2007) (cit ing Havner , 7 9 5 3S .W .2 d at 7 1 4) (qu ot ati onmark s o mitt ed). Seei d
. 8 3 o f hi s c l i ni c ) unt i lJ anua r y 20 06 , W e l l s s ur r e nde r e d $1 0 m i l l i o n t o t he N e va da ga m i ng t ab l e s – i nc l udi ng $4 m i l l i o n i n J anua r y al o ne . H e t o l d hi s do c t o r a bo ut 2 t h e gam bl i n g probl em , st opp ed t ak i n g R equ i p, an d h as not been b ack to V egas. B. W el l s sue d G l axoSm i t hK l i ne, t he m a nufac t ure r of R equi p, al l egi ng t hat G SK had fai l ed t o w ar n pat i ent s about t he s i de e f fec t of pat hol ogi c algam bl i ng. 3 4 F or W el l s t o w i n u n der T exas l aw , h e m u st sh ow tha t the fai l u re t o w arn caused 5 h i s i nj u ry. C au sati on h as t w o l evel s, gen eralan d speci f i c, an d a p l ai n t i f

f m u st 6 pro ve bot h. “ G ener alc ausat i on i s w het her a s ubst ance i s c apabl e o f c ausi ng a pa rt i cul ar i nj u ry or cond i t i on in the gen eralpop u l ati on , w h i l e speci f i c c au sati on i s w h et h er a s u bstance caused a parti cul ar i n di vi du al ’ s i nj u ry. ” Sequ en ce 7
m a tt e r s : a p la in tiff

m u s t e s ta b lis h g e n e r a l ca u s a tio n b e fo r e m o v in g to s p e c ific
cau sati on . W i t h ou t t h e predi cat e proof of gen eralcausati on , t h e t ort cl ai m fai l s. 8 Case: 09-50244 Document: 00511058145 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 50244

Riverwood

I nt ’l C orp. v. Employ ers Ins. of W ausau , 4 2 0F .3 d 3 7 8 , 3 8 2 ( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). 9 Berq uistv. W

ash. Mut . Bank , 5 0 0F .3 d 3 4 4 , 3 4 9( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7). 10 4 W e lls e n g a g e d th r e e e x p e r t w itn e s s e s to a d d r e s s ca u s a tio n , th a t R e q u ip
ca n cau se p a th ological ga m b l i n g. In rea ch i n g th eir con clu s io n s , t h e ex p erts
r e l i e d u p o n : ( 1 ) p u b l i s h e d a r t i c l e s d o c u m e n t i n g c a s e - s p e c i f i c c o r r e l a t i o ns be t w e e n Req ui p a nd g am bl i ng; ( 2) a s i ngl e unp ubl i s he d s t udy s ho w i ng a ne xus b etw ee n P a rk i n son ’ s m ed i ci n es ge n era l l y a n d g a m b l i n g; ( 3 ) G S K ’ s i n tern a lda ta
r e ve al i ng c as e - s pe c i f i c a s s o c i at i o ns b et w een Req ui p a nd g am bl i ng; a nd ( 4) t he fa c t th a t G S Kh a s si n ce ch a n ge d the R eq u i p l a b el t o w a rn ab ou t po ssible gam b li n g si de-ef

fect s. E ach of

t h e t h ree expert s, t h ou gh , conceded t h at t h ere e x is t s n o s c ie n tific a lly re lia b le e v id e n c e o f a ca u s e -a n d -e ffe c t r e la tio n s h ip bet w ee n R equi p and gam bl i ng. T h e com pa n y m oved f or s u m m ary j u dg m en t , argu i n g: ( 1) t h at t h e expert op i n i on s d i d n ot m ee t D au bert ’ s adm i ss i bi l i t y r equi r em ent s ; o r , a l t e r na t i vel y, ( 2) t h at t h e l a ck o f s ci en t i f i cal l y rel i able da t a sup porti n g gen eralcausati on precl u ded rec overy un der T exas l aw . Th e di st ri ct court assum ed the exp ert t e s t im o n y ’s a d m i s s ib il it y , b u t fo u n d th a t th e e x p e r t s d id n o t s u p p o r t W e ll s ’s
c l a i m wi t h s c i e n t i f

i c a l l y r e l i a b l e e v i d e n c e o f c a u s a t i o n a s r e q u i r e d b y T e x a s l a w. W e l l s a ppe al e d t he s um m ar y j udg m e nt
. Our r e vi e w i s de no vo , a ppl yi ng t he sam e s t and ar ds a s t he di s t r i c t c o ur t
. W e m aya f f i r m o n a ny gr o unds 9
s upp o r t e d b y t he r e c o r d. 10
II. A. D au bertr e qui r es a dm i s s i bl e e xp e r t t e s t i m o ny t o b e b o t h r e l i ab l e a nd Case: 09-50244 Document: 00511058145 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 50244

Knight , 482 F.3dat 352 (cit ing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Ph arms., I nc. , 50 9 U .S. 57 9, 11 5 8 9( 1 9 9 3 ))
.

Daubert , 50 9 U .S. at59 2–9 3. 12 Id
. at59 0. 13 Kumh o T

ire C o. v. Carmich ael , 5 2 6U .S
. 1 3 7 , 1 5 2 ( 1 9 9 9). 14 Knight , 482 F.3dat 351 (cit ing Daubert , 5 0 9U .S
. at 5 9 3 ). 15 Id
. (cit ing Daubert , 5 0 9U .S
. at 5 9 3 ). 16 See Kumh o T

ire C o. , 52 6 U .S. at15 0. 17 5 rel evan t
. “ T h i s entai l s a prel i m i n ary assessm en t of w h et h er t h e reasoni n g or

11
m et hodol ogyu nder l yi ng t he te st i m ony i s s c i ent i f i c al l y val i d an d of

w het her t hat
r e a s o n in g o r m e th o d o lo g y p r o p e r ly ca n b e a p p lie d to th e fa c ts in is s u e .” 12 Al t ho ugh t he r e a r e “ no c e r t ai nt i e s i n s c i e nc e , ” t he e xp e r t m us t pr e s e nt
con cl u sion s “gro u n d [ed] i n the m eth od s an d pr oce d u res o f scien ce.” In sh ort, 13 t h e expert m u st “ em pl oy[] in the cou rt room t h e sam e l evel of i n t el l ect u al ri gor th a t c h a r a c te r iz e s th e p r a c tic e o f a n e x p e r t in th e re le v a n t fie ld .” 14 “[T ]h e S u p r e m e C o u r t [h a s ] d e lin e a te d ce r ta in fa c to r s to a s s is t co u r ts in evaluati n g t h e f

ou n d a tion of

a gi ven expert’ s t est i m on y, t h ou gh t h e C ou rt caref u l l y em ph asi zed the non exh au st i ve n ature of t h e listi n g. ” Su ggested 15
c o n s id e r a tio n s in c lu d e : “w h e th e r th e th e o r y o r te c h n iq u e th e e x p e r t e m p lo y s is ge ne r al l y ac c e pt e d; w he t he r t he t he o r y has b e e n s ubj e c t e d t o pe e r r e vi e w a nd pu bl i cat i on ; w h et h er t h e t h eory can an d has been t est ed; w h et h er t h e kn ow n or po t e nt i alr at e o f e r r o r i s ac c e pt ab l e ; and w he t he r t he r e a r e s t and ar ds c o nt r o l l i ng t he t ec hni que’ s ope r at i on. ” Th er e i s no f or m ul a, and t he c our t m u st j u d ge 16 ad m i ssibi l i t y based on the pa rt i cul ar fact s of t h e case. 17 Case: 09-50244 Document: 00511058145 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 50244

1 7 1 F .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 0 9( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 9). 18 6 B. W e l l s pr o f

fe r e d t he t e s t i m o ny o f t hr e e e xp e r t s : D o c t o r s F o ng, Sa kl ad , a nd K al echstei n . N on e di d m ore t h an bal dl y st ate t h a t R e q u i p can cause probl em g a m b lin g . A t t h e ir d e p o s itio n s , th e th r e e a d m itt e d th a t n o s c ie n tific b a s is exi st ed to confi rm t h ei r c on cl u si on s. Fonge xp l ai ne d: “ I t h i n k f u n d a m e n t a l l yt h e r e i s s o m e t h i n gv e r yc o m p e l l i ng an d i n t ere s t i ng go i ng o n he r e , b ut w e do n’ t ha ve e no ugh da t a t o s ugg e st
c a u s a lity
. . . . I h a v e n o t c o m e to a co n c lu s io n th a t t h e r e is a ca u s a l re la tio n s h ip betw een R equ i p an d p athol ogi calg am bl i n g. ” H e f u rt h er t est i f

i ed that – based
on the “ sci en t i f

i c st an da rd t h at [ h e] a pp l [ i es] in [hi s] pract i ce as a psych i atr i st
an d a researc h sci en t i st ” – t h e sci en t i f i c l i t erat u re di d not est abli sh a “ cau sea n d -e ffe c t r e la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n R e q u ip a n d p a th o lo g ic a l g a m b lin g .” Sak l ad ’ s de po s i t i o n went t he s am e w ay . H e w as a s ke d: “Appl yi ng t he
s c ie n tific s ta n d a r d fo r c a u s e a n d e ffe c t, h a s –h a s a ca u s e -a n d -e ffe c t r e la tio n s h ip been est abl i s he d b et w een t ak i n g R equ i p an d h aving on e or m ore i m pu l se- control d is o r d e r s co n s id e r e d a s a co lle c tiv e g r o u p ? ” H e a n s w e r e d : “N o .” A bi t m o r e he s i t antat f i r s t , K al e c hs t e i n ul t i m at e l y fe l li n l i ne w i t h Fo ng a n d S a k la d : “I ca n n o t sa y [ R e q u ip ] d ire ctly ca u se s [p a th o log ica l ga m b li n g ]. W h a t I ca n s a y is th a t t h e r e is a n a s s o c ia t i o n b e t w e e n th e tw o v a r ia b le s . . . . [T ]h a t’s d iffe r e n t t h a n ta lk in g a b o u t t h e is s u e o f c a u s a tio n .” U nde r t he l aw of

t hi s c i r c ui t , t he s e a dm i s s i o ns dr ai n t he e xp e r t o pi ni o ns o f pr o ba t i ve f

o r c e . I n B l ack v. F

ood L i on , I

n c. , t he pl ai nt i f

f c l ai m e d t hats he
s lip p e d in th e d e fe n d a n t’s s to r e a n d th a t t h e fa ll ca u s e d fib r o m y a lg ia
s y n d r o me . T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a d mi t t e d t h e p l a i n t i f f ’ s p r o f fe r e d e x p e r t , a n d we 18 Case: 09-50244 Document: 00511058145 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 50244

Id
. at31 2. 19 Id
. ( qu ot ati onmark s o mitt ed); see a lso id
. at31 3 n .2. 20 See Daubert , 50 9 U .S. at58 9–9 0. 21 Knightv. K

irby In land Marine In c. , 4 8 2 F .3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 2 ( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7). 22 See , e.g. , B urleso n v. Tex. Dep’tof Crimin al J ust ice , 393 F.3d 57 7, 586(5th Cir. 200 4) 23 (“Here, a s in Allen , th ere are no epide miolo gical studie s suppo rtin g a c orrel atio n betwee n the su g ges te d cau sativ e a gent a n d th e typeof can ce r expe ri ence d byth e pl aintiff.”); Allen v. Pa. En g’g C orp. , 10 2 F .3d 1 94, 197(5th Cir. 1 996) (“Whileapp ell ant s’ experts acknowledge th e 7 r e ve r s e d o n D au bertg r o unds f o r a bus e of di s c r e t i o n. W e e xp l ai ne d t hatt he
e x p e r t’s te s tim o n y d id “n o t b e a r th e n e c e s s a r y in d i c i a o f in te lle c tu a l rig o r .” 19 W hi l e “ as s o c i at i o n” w as w e l le s t ab l i s he d, “ e xp e r t s ha ve r e c o gni z e d t hatt he evi den ce t h a t t ra u m a actual l y cau ses f i brom yalgi a i s i n suff i ci en t t o est abli sh
c a u s a l re la tio n s h ip s .” G iv e n t h e e x p e r ts ’ co n c e s s io n s in th is ca s e , B l ack 20 control s – and w e need not go an y fu rth e r. H ow ever, sensi t i ve t o t h e casespeci f i c nature of

t h e D au berti n qu i ry, w e w il l cl osel y exam i n e t h e experts ’
m et hodol ogy . C. The e xp e r t s b as e d t he i r g e ne r alc aus at i on c o nc l us i o n pr i m ar i l y o n t he
s c i e nt i f i c l i t e r at ur e , w hi c h t he y c l ai m s ho w s a n a s s o c i at i o n b e t w e e n Req ui p a nd probl em gam bl i n g. T h e li t erat u re, t h ou gh , does not provi de the n ecess ary

“ sci en t i f

i c k n o w l edg e” up on w h i ch to base an opi n i on un der D au bert
. D oct or 21 F on g cha ract eri zed al l bu t on e of t h e st u di es as “ an ecdotalevi den ce, ” an d each expe r t c onc ede d t hat t he st udi es w er e not st at i st i c al l y s i gni f i c ant epi dem i ol ogy . T h ey w ere, i n fact , case st u di es. A l t h ou gh , “ [ c] ase- controlst u di es are n ot per se i n ad m i ssibl e evi den ce on gen era lcausati on , ” t h i s c ou rt ha s f row n ed on 22
ca u sa ti ve con cl u sion s be reft of stati sti ca l l y s i gni f i c antepi dem i ol ogi ca lsu p p ort. 23 Case: 09-50244 Document: 00511058145 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 50244

lack of statisticallysignificant ep id em iological evidence, theyrely on certain studie s as ‘sugge stiv e’ of alink betweenEtO exposureand brai n canc er. ‘Suggestivene ss’ is not byth e expe rt s’o wna dm is si onst ati stic al si gnif ic a nce. . . ; thisb a si s f orth eir sc ie ntific op inio nmu st b e re j ec te d. ”)
. D A NI EL W EI NTRAU B ET AL ., D O PAM I NERG I C T HE R A P Y A ND I M PULSE C ON T R OL 24 D I S ORDE R S I N PA R KI NS ON ’ S D I S EA SE : A C ROSS -S ECTI O NAL S TUD Y O F O VER 3,00 0 PATI ENTS (2 0 0 8) (s u mmari z in ga ne pi de mi ol ogic al st u dyp re se nte d at ac onfe re n ce).

Daubert , 50 9 U .S. at59 3. 25 See Knight , 48 2 F .3d at3 53 (affirmi ngrej ectio n of a“stu dy focuse d onorganic 26 solvents as acl ass, inclu ding a w id e- r ange o f ch emicals towhich [the plaintiffs] were n ev er expo se d”); see a lso Bu rleson , 39 3 F .3d at 585–86 (affir ming rejectionof a study showin g that exposureto a substance c ause s cancer butn ot sh owing th at the specific type o f exposure suff er edb yth e pl ainti ff

c ouldl ea d tohisp artic u lar typeo f ca n ce r) ; Allen , 10 2 F .3d at 1 97 (affirmi ngrejectionof a study showin g that exposure to carcinogen cau sed adiffe renttype o f ca n ce r th a nth e on e suff er edb yp laintiff

). 8 O n l y on e st u dy – t h e W ei n t rau b P ost er – reached st ati st i calsi gn i f i can ce. 24 The Pos t e r s ugg e s t s t hatPar ki ns o n’ s pa t i e nt s m e di c at e d wi t h do pa m i ne agoni st s exhi bi t i ncr eas ed i m pul si ve behavi or , i ncl udi ng pat hol ogi c algam bl i ng. B u t t h e st u dy ha s ot h er s ci en t i f i c probl em s m ak i n g i t i n suff i ci en t as a basi s f

or e x p e r t o p in io n . F ir s t, “s u b m is s io n t o th e s c r u tin y o f th e s c ie n tific co m m u n ity is
a com pon en t of

‘ good sc i en ce, ’ ” bu t t h e W ei n t rau b P ost e r w as nev er peerrevi ew ed or pu bl i shed
. S econd , t h e st u dy expl ai n s t h at i t s r esul t s “ represented 25
a cl ass a ssoc i ati on , a s opposed t o a speci f i c m edi cat i on , f

i n di n g. ” I n ot h er w ords, t he W ei nt r aub Post erdoe s not r epo r t a “ c ont r ol l ed” t es t f orR equi p, a dr ug t hat f u n ct i on s di f

ferentl y t h an ot h er dopa m i n e agon i st s. F in a l l y, i t s authors 26 conceded t h at t h e very “ n ature of t h e st u d y precl u ded deter m i n ati on of
c a u s a lity .” W h i l e “ [ w ] e . . . un derst an d that i n epi dem i ol ogy h ardl y an y st u dy i s ever concl u si ve, an d w e do n ot sugg est t h at an exp ert m u st b a ck hi s orher opi n i on Case: 09-50244 Document: 00511058145 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 50244

Knight , 48 2 F .3d at 3 54. 27 Gen. Elec. C

o. v. Join er , 5 2 2 U .S
. 1 3 6 , 1 4 6( 1 9 9 7). 28One of Well s’s experts, Dr. Sakla d, explained in his d ep os it ion th at “cau satio n 29 requires scientificliteraturethat prov es a statisticallyvali d reproducibleresult whichcould b e u se d toe st ab li shc a u sati on . S u chstu di esh av e n otb ee nd on e. ” I t b ears menti oning that, in addition to the lite rature, Well s’s experts purport to r ely 30 on GSK’s inte r na l d ocume ntationinreachi ngth e co nclusio n that R equip c ause s prob lem ga mbli ng . S p ec if

ically , GSK ha s, over the ye ars and per the FDA’ s requir ement s, collecte d datao np ati entssuff erin gi n cr ea se d g a mb ling wh ent aki n gR equ ip
. Thisd atash ow s a relativelyhigh numb er o f self-reporte d spikes, butm in in g t hi s datais not the scientific metho d; rather , it is rife withbi as a nd variab ility. We lls also points out thatG S K ha s no w cha nged its R equip l abe l t o warn abo ut possibl e ga mbli ng probl ems. This precautio n, thou gh , di d n otgro w out of

sci entific kn owle dge o f cau sati on ; rath er , GSK c h a n gedth e lab elb ec a u se ther e migh tbean a s s oc iatio n . See21 C .F.R . § 201 .80(e) (“The lab eli ngshall be revised to inc ludea warning

as soon as thereis reaso nab le evidence of an associationof a seriou s ha zard withadru g ; ac a u sal re lati on shipn ee d n oth av e b ee np rov ed .”).

See Kumh o T

ire C o. v. Carmich ael , 526 U. S. 137 , 141 (199 9) (d es cribing Daubertas 31 “s etti n gf

orthth e trial j u dge’ s gen er al ‘gate ke ep in g’ ob li g ati on”)
. 9 w i t h pu bl i shed st u di es t h at un equ i vocal l y sup port h i s or h er concl u si on s, ” here 27

“ t h ere i s s i m pl y t oo great an an al yti calgap betw een t h e data an d the opi n i on pr o f fe r e d
. ” An d t h e b a s e s f o r t h e e x p e r t s ’ c o n c l u s i o n s p a s s n o n e o f t he 28 ap pl i cabl e D au bertte s ts : th a t R e q u ip ca u s e s p r o b le m g a m b lin g is n o t g e n e r a lly
a ccepted, ha s not been subj ect ed to peer revi ew an d p u bl i cat i on , an d i s not 29 back ed by st u di es m eet i n g requ i si t e sc i en t i f i c s t an da rds. W i t h ou t t h e expert 30 t es t i m ony, W el l s c annot pr ove ge ner alca u sa ti on – a nd j udgm ent m ust be
e n t e r e d f

o r GS K.
III. O ur c onc l usi on t hat t he t r i alc our t di d not a b u se i t s di sc r et i on i s an u n rem arka bl e sust ai n i ng o f t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s g at e ke e pi ng r o l e und er D au bert
. 31 Case: 09-50244 Document: 00511058145 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 50244

The Supre me C ourtof Tex as h as e xpl ain ed th at “thesame factors maybeapp lie d” 32 to “no evidence r eview o f scie ntific evidence” as toreview o f admi ssibilityof scientific tes tim ony. Merrell Dow P harms., In c. v. Havner , 95 3 S.W.2d 706 , 71 4 (T ex . 19 97) (refere nci ng E.I . duP ontde Nemo urs & Co. v. Ro bins on , 923 S.W.2d 549 , 556– 57 (Tex . 19 95) (adoptingth e federal Daubertst a n dardi nth e T ex a s- law i n qu iryi ntoth e a dm is sib ility of expe rtt es ti mo ny)) ; id. at71 2 (e xpl aining t hat scie ntific sufficie ncyinT ex as “i s dete rmine d bylo oking at n u me ro u s f

a ct or s in clu di n gth os e se t fo rthin. . . Daubert”)
. See Ros en v. Ciba-GeigyC orp. , 78F .3d 3 16, 319(7th Cir. 1 996) (“L aw la gs science; 33 itd oe s notl ea d it .”). 10 I n f i ndi ng t he evi denc e sc i ent i f i c al l y u nre l i abl e – and t hus i nsuf f i c i ent t o pr ove cau sa tion u n der T exas l aw – i t f ol l ow s t h at t h e experts ’ t est i m on y w as al so defi ci en t un der D a u b er t g iv e n its o v e r la p w ith T e x a s q u e s tio n s o f s c ie n tific suf f i c i enc y. 32 P e r h a p s R e q u ip is a ca u s e o f p r o b le m g a m b lin g , b u t t h e s c ie n tific kn ow l edg e i s not yet t h ere. W el l s u rges the l aw t o l ead sc i en ce – a sequen ce not
c oun ten a n ced by D au bert
. A n d w h ile th e p o s s ib ilitie s o f th e ir re la tio n s h ip 33 p rop erly sp a rk co n cern s su ff i ci en t to w a rra n t ca u ti on , th e cou rts m u st a w a i t i ts
r e s u l t
. A F F I RMED. Case: 09-50244 Document: 00511058145 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/22/2010