-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

TERI WALTERS and KIM WALTERS, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

UNPUBLISHED 

January 29, 2015 

v No. 319016 

Eaton Circuit Court 

DONALD S. FALIK, D.D.S., d/b/a FALIK 

FAMILY DENTISTRY, ROBERT C. FALIK, 

D.D.S., and JANE DOE, 

LC No. 12-000658-NH 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

Before: MURPHY, P.J., and METER and SERVITTO, JJ. 

METER, J. (dissenting). 

 Because I believe that the lower court properly exercised its discretion in excluding the 

testimony of Dr. M. Eric Gershwin, I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the trial court’s ruling. 

 Plaintiffs contended that defendants erroneously provided phosphoric acid etching 

solution to Teri Walters instead of the teeth-whitening solution that they were supposed to have 

provided. In February 2011, Teri used this solution overnight. Defendant Donald Falik agreed 

that etching solution is only intended to be used for seconds at a time. Teri testified at her 

deposition that in the morning after she used the solution, it felt like her mouth was burning. She 

claimed that defendants admitted giving her the wrong solution and that they attempted to repair 

the stains that had resulted on her teeth. 

 In April 2011, Teri was diagnosed with chronic sinusitis and later complained of a 

plugging sensation in her left ear. After persistent symptoms, she was diagnosed with Wegener’s 

granulomatosis (WG), an autoimmune disease that shortens typical lifespan and that is 

characterized by symptoms such as inflammation of the sinuses and lungs. Plaintiffs’ proposed 

expert witness, Gershwin, testified during his deposition that, in his opinion, Teri developed WG 

because of the use of the etching solution combined with a genetic predisposition to WG. 

 Gershwin testified that WG occurs in persons who are genetically predisposed to having 

a “promiscuous” immune system that is highly responsive to antibodies. He stated that some 

mechanism will induce the death of cells, causing the release of a “neutrophillic antigen,” and a 

person who is genetically susceptible will then mount an immune response. He testified that 

there are a variety of environmental agents that can contribute to the response. Gershwin 

admitted that he had provided no literature concluding that phosphoric acid causes or contributes 
-2- 

to WG, but stated that there are data about solvents, hydrocarbons, and silica, which is adjacent 

to phosphorus on the periodic table. Gershwin testified that what happened was that the 

phosphoric acid hit water, dissociated, and produced a large inflammatory response. He opined 

that although plaintiff might have gotten WG at some point regardless, she would not have 

gotten it when she did without the exposure to the etching solution. 

 Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude Gershwin’s testimony due to lack of 

supporting evidence that exposure to phosphoric acid is recognized as a cause of WG. The trial 

court heard argument on the motion on September 19, 2013, and issued its decision from the 

bench. 

 Applying MRE 702, the court found that Gershwin was highly qualified in the field and 

that expert testimony would assist the trier of fact, but went on to find that it was questionable 

whether his opinion was based on sufficient facts. The court found that the majority of the 

articles presented by the parties indicated that the etiology for WG was unknown, and none of 

the studies referred to phosphoric acid or any kind of acid exposure as a cause. The court noted 

that the literature did not support Gershwin’s conclusions with the same degree of certainty that 

he professed. The court stated that “the cutting edge of medicine is simply not the standard for a 

courtroom. In applying MRE 702, I just don’t find his testimony reliable enough to allow it to 

go to the jury. So I’m going to grant the motion.” 

 Plaintiffs’ counsel questioned the court regarding the possibility of a Daubert1 hearing. 

The court stated that it would not preclude a hearing, but it was doubtful whether plaintiffs 

would be able to prevail. The court specifically stated that there was sufficient time for such a 

hearing to take place and even stated that it would make accommodations to allow for Gershwin 

to testify by video. Plaintiffs did not pursue a hearing. 

 Plaintiffs now contend that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion in limine. 

This Court reviews for abuse of discretion a trial court’s decision whether to admit evidence. 

Chapin v A & L Parts, Inc, 274 Mich App 122, 126; 732 NW2d 578 (2007). 

 MRE 702 provides: 

 If the court determines that 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 on 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. 

MCL 600.2955 provides: 

 

1 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579; 113 S Ct 2786; 125 L Ed 2d 469 

(1993). 
-3- 

 (1) In an action for the death of a person or for injury to a person or 

property, a scientific opinion rendered by an otherwise qualified expert is not 

admissible unless the court determines that the opinion is reliable and will assist 

the trier of fact. In making that determination, the court shall examine the opinion 

and the basis for the opinion, which basis includes the facts, technique, 

methodology, and reasoning relied on by the expert, and shall consider all of the 

following factors: 

 (a) Whether the opinion and its basis have been subjected to scientific 

testing and replication. 

 (b) Whether the opinion and its basis have been subjected to peer review 

publication. 

 (c) The existence and maintenance of generally accepted standards 

governing the application and interpretation of a methodology or technique and 

whether the opinion and its basis are consistent with those standards. 

 (d) The known or potential error rate of the opinion and its basis. 

 (e) The degree to which the opinion and its basis are generally accepted 

within the relevant expert community. As used in this subdivision, “relevant 

expert community” means individuals who are knowledgeable in the field of 

study and are gainfully employed applying that knowledge on the free market. 

 (f) Whether the basis for the opinion is reliable and whether experts in 

that field would rely on the same basis to reach the type of opinion being 

proffered. 

 (g) Whether the opinion or methodology is relied upon by experts outside 

of the context of litigation. 

 (2) A novel methodology or form of scientific evidence may be admitted 

into evidence only if its proponent establishes that it has achieved general 

scientific acceptance among impartial and disinterested experts in the field. 

 (3) In an action alleging medical malpractice, the provisions of this 

section are in addition to, and do not otherwise affect, the criteria for expert 

testimony provided in section 2169. 

 In Chapin, 274 Mich App at 133, the Court recognized the reliance of the expert witness 

on the “Sir Bradford Hill” methodology for determining causation. 

 The Sir Bradford Hill methodology, as explained by Dr. Lemen, contains 

nine criteria, all of which should be considered when determining causation. 

“Strength of association” means a sufficiently strong association between a 

substance and an effect can permit conclusions without statistical epidemiologic 

data. For example, no epidemiological studies were needed to show that cyanide 
-4- 

gas kills film-recovery plant workers when they are exposed to it. Dr. Lemen 

explained that epidemiological evidence “is clearly the best that we’ve got” and 

“it leaves little doubt” when it exists, but it was not needed to draw conclusions 

on which to base preventive actions. “Temporality” means that cause must 

precede effect or there can be no association. “Biologic gradient,” or “response 

gradient,” refers to basic toxicological knowledge that more exposure increases 

the risk of disease, as asbestos does. “Consistency” means a given effect must 

“be observed repeatedly in multiple studies,” preferably different kinds of studies, 

and “specificity” means an agent always causes the same kind or kinds of disease. 

It is undisputed that asbestos consistently causes the same few diseases. 

“Biological plausibility” looks at whether a theory of causation comports with 

other known facts, such as whether an agent can actually affect a certain body 

part, and asbestos fits this criterion. “Coherence” is similar to biological 

plausibility in that it checks for inconsistency with other theories of causation. 

Dr. Lemen noted that the animal studies and the biological studies on asbestos fit 

together. “Experimental evidence” could include animal and laboratory studies in 

the case of asbestos, and the experimental evidence also connected asbestos to the 

same diseases. It would, of course, be unethical to perform clinical experiments 

on people by deliberately exposing them to asbestos to confirm its toxicity, no 

matter how probative such an experiment might be. 

 The final factor in the Sir Bradford Hill methodology is “analogy.” Dr. 

Lemen explained that, as applied to the circumstances of this case, “analogy” 

looks at whether automobile brake workers are actually exposed to enough of the 

agent under discussion to cause disease. Dr. Lemen again stated that there was no 

known safe exposure level to asbestos below which it would not cause 

mesothelioma, and studies exist showing that automobile brake workers are 

exposed to asbestos, thereby indicating a cause and effect relationship. On the 

basis of all of the foregoing factors, combined with the known asbestos exposure 

and “thousands of epidemiological studies and animal studies and toxicological 

studies,” Dr. Lemen concluded that there was ample scientific evidence to link 

mesothelioma to occupational exposure to asbestos-containing brake products. 

Dr. Lemen further pointed out that none of the factors was dispositive by itself, 

but the best way to determine causation was to consider them all and to further 

consider reports issued by governments and health agencies or organizations. [Id. 

at 133-135.] 

 In place of an epidemiological study, plaintiffs primarily rely on the Bradford Hill 

method to support their theory of causation and to support their argument that Gershwin’s 

testimony was admissible. However, the trial court thoughtfully considered the Bradford Hill 

method in reaching its conclusions and it carefully distinguished the Chapin case. The trial court 

noted that in Chapin, “the history with asbestos, asbestos causing these problems [i.e., 

mesothelioma] was clearly well established. . . . [A]sbestos affects all individuals who are 

exposed to it in essentially the same way.” The only dispute in Chapin concerned whether brake 

workers, in particular, would develop mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos-based 

brake products during their work. See id. at 135. The present case is fundamentally different 

because there are evidently no studies showing that phosphoric acid causes WG. Importantly, 
-5- 

Gershwin himself admitted that none of the literature he provided showed such causation. Under 

the circumstances, I simply cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion by granting 

defendants’ motion in limine. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court chooses an 

outcome falling outside the range of principled outcomes.” Edry v Adelman, 486 Mich 634, 639; 

786 NW2d 567 (2010). The court’s decision was not outside the range of principled outcomes. I 

note that the Michigan Supreme Court “has implied that, while not dispositive, a lack of 

supporting literature is an important factor in determining the admissibility of expert witness 

testimony.” Id. at 640. The court did not abuse its discretion in essentially concluding that 

Gershwin’s testimony amounted to speculation. 

 It is at least conceivable that a more expansive hearing would have provided additional 

support for Gershwin’s theory, but plaintiffs failed to pursue a Daubert hearing even after being 

specifically invited to do so by the trial court. 

 I would affirm. 

/s/ Patrick M. Meter