F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT Dece mb er 16, 2008 THO MAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 13 81 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 17 9- CV-HLM-4 DAVID R. W ILSON, CHARLENE W ILSON, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s,

ve rs us TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Dece m ber 1 6, 2 00 8) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an ts Davi d a ndCh arl en e Wils on(th e “ W il so ns ”) b ro ug ht cl ai m s fo r pr oduc ts li ab il it y , pu ni ti ve da m ag es , andlo ss of c on so rti um ag ai ns t Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee TASER In te rn at io na l, In c. (“ TASER”). The W il so ns ass ert th atTASER, th e m anuf

actur er o f anele ctric al stun gu n, fa il edto warnof t he al le ge dl y kn ownris k t ha t ex po su re t o t he weap on co ul d c au se frac tu res an d, as a res ul t, Geo rg iaSta te Troo pe r Dav idW il so n s uf fere d afrac tu redsp in e dur in g a TASER tra in in g e xe rci se . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d TASER’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, wh ic h t he W il so ns no w app eal . For t he fol lo win g re as on s, we AFFIRM . BACKGRO UND The fact s o f th is cas e, as supp orte d b y th e ev id en ce t ak eninth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e Wils on s, ar e as fol lo ws: On Se pt em

be r 7, 2 00 4, Dav idW il so n a tt en de d aTASER cert ifi cat io n c la ss in Fo rs yth , Geor gi a atth e Geo rg iaPubl ic Safe ty T rai ni ng Cen te r. W il so n was sh own a sl id e p res en ta ti on whi chcau se d h im to be li ev e th atno in

juri es , exc ep t du e to fal ls , hadoc cu rreddu rin g t rai ni ng . W il so n v ol un te eredto be sh oc ke d a s pa rt o f hi s t rai ni ng an d was ass ur edth athe wou ldbe pro pe rly sp ot te d a nd th eref or e wou ldno t b e in

jure d. Wils on was h el d b y th ree s po tt ers an d s ho t i n t he ba ckwith aTASER by the t rai ne r. W il so n d es cri be d t he pa in fol lo win g t hi s 2ex po su re as “un be li ev ab le ” an d c la im s t ha t h e co nt in ue d t o e xp eri en ce i nt en se

pa in aft er the sh oc k was ov er. An a m bu lanc e was cal le d a ndW il so n was tak ento th e h os pi ta l em erg en cy

roo m . The em erg en cy

roo m ph y si ci anreco m

m en de d t ha t W il so n b e ad m it te d fo r pa in co nt ro l. Wils on , ho wev er, d ecl in edto be adm it te d, was gi ve n p res cri pt io ns forna rco ti c p ai n m ed ic at io n a ndwas d is ch arg edwith in st ru ct io ns to see hi s p ers on al ph y si ci an . The fol lo win g d ay , W il so n wen t t o s ee Dr. EdwardMei er, wh o s pe ci al iz es in fam il y pra ct ic e an d o ccupa ti on al m ed ic in e. Dr. Mei er n ot edth atW il so n h ad co nt in ue d t o e xp eri en ce p ai n e ve n a fte r he was g iv enMo rp hi ne , Perco cet s an d
m us cl e rel ax ers an d t ha t h is pa in was wel l o utof p ro po rti on with t he ob jecti ve x- ray fin di ng s t ha t h e rec ei ve d fr om th e h os pi ta l. Dr. Mei er treat edW il so n fo r ba ckpa in an d m

us cl e sp as m s an d re co m

m en de d p hysic al th erap y . On Oct ob er 5 , 20 04 , W il so n a ga in vi si te d Dr. M ei er, wh o n ot edth atW il so n was “ do in g alo t be tt er an d i m

pr ov ed .” On Oct ob er 2 8, 2 00 4, Dr. Me ie r’s pa rtn er, Dr. Mi ch ael Jac ks on , referred W il so n fo r anMRI. Th e MR I rev eal edtwo co m pr es si on frac tures of h is th or aci c sp in e. Dr. Jac ks on refe rredW il so n t o o rth op ed ic sp eci al is t Dr. Sco ttBo werm an fo r co ns ul ta ti on an d t reat m en t. OnAug us t 2 3, 2 00 5 a ndag ai n o n Ap ril 18 , 20 06 ,

3Dr. Mei er, aft er co ns ul ti ng with Dr. Bo werm an , cert ifi edW il so n a s unabl e to

return t o wo rkdu e to th e co m pr es si on fractur es cau se d b y th e TASER expo su re. The reaf te r, th e Wils on s b ro ug htth ei r cl ai m s ag ai ns t TASER i n d is tri ct co urt, al le gi ng th atth e fai lu re t o warn o f a kno wn ri skcau se d Dav idW il so n’s co m pr es si on frac tu re. At the clo se of d is co ve ry , TASER fil eda m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, as se rti ng th atth e Wils on s fa il edto pre se ntsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce of cau sa ti on . The Wils on s re sp on de d t o TASER’s m ot io n a ndatt ach edth e affi da vi t o f tr eat in g p hysic ia n Dr. M ei er, wh o o pi ne d t ha t the cau se of Wil so n’s in jury w as th e TASER ex po su re. TASER ob jecte d t o t hi s af

fid av it , ass ert in g t ha t Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 2 6( a)(2 )(B) requi redth e Wils on s t o d is cl os e Dr. Mei er as anex pe rt wi tn es s an d s ub m itanex pe rt r ep ort fo r Dr. Mei er. The di stric t co urt en te redanord er d en y in g TASER’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, b utdi rect in g t he W il so ns to ob ta in anex pe rt r ep ort fr om Dr. Mei er reg ard in g h is cau sa ti on op in io n a ndto m ak e Dr. Mei er av ai labl e fo r a d ep os it io n. The W il so ns ob ta in edanex pe rt r ep ort fr om Dr. Mei er an d TASER d ep os edhi m . Inhi s ex pe rt r ep ort, Dr. Me ie r de sc rib edhi s t reat m en t o f Mr. Wils on th en st at edth at“ [b ]asedon m

y rev ie w of t he reco rd s fr om th e Mo nr oe Co un ty H os pi ta l Em erg en cy

Ro om , th e rec or ds fro m

ph y si cal th erap y , th e rad io lo gi cal rep ort, Dr. Bo werm an ’s con su lt at io n, an d my tre atm en t o f Mr. Wils onwhi chbe ga n the da y 4fo ll owi ng hi s i nju ry an d c on ti nu edform or e th antwo m on th s af te rward , andba se d up on m y m ed ic al tra in in g a ndex pe rie nc e, an d t o areas on ab le de gr ee o f m ed ic al cert ai nt y , th e cau se of M r. W il so n’s co m pr es si on frac tu re an d h is sev ere b ackpa in was du e to expo su re t o t he TASER du rin g t he tra in in g e xe rci se onSep te m be r 7, 20 04 .” Dr. Mei er fu rth er n ot edth at“ [i]t i s wel l d oc um en te d i n t he m ed ic al li te ratur e th atfrac tu res m ay be cau se d b y

ele ctric sh oc k” an d c it edto th e o pi ni on of a Dr. Bro wn an d t o an a tt ach edart ic le en ti tl ed“ Tho raci c Co m pr es si on Frac tu res as aRes ul t o f Sh oc k F ro m a Co nduc te d En erg y

W eap on : A Cas e Rep ort.” TASER fil eda Daube rt m ot io n t o e xc lu de Dr. Mei er’s ex pe rt t es ti m on y reg ard in g c au sa ti on , cla im in g tha t h is op in io ns on th atsubjec t ar e unr el iabl e. The 1 di st ric t co urt g ran te d TASER’s m ot io n a ndex cl ud edDr. Mei er’s ex pe rt t es ti m on y reg ard in g c au sa ti on . The co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t al th ou gh Dr. Mei er was qu al ifi edto of fer o pi ni on s co nc ern in g m ed ic al cau sa ti on , hi s o pi ni on inth is cas e was un rel iabl e b ecau se th e o pi ni on s o f hi s co ll eag ue s, upo n wh ic h h e rel ie d, wer e sp ecu la ti ve an d c on cl us ory an d b ecau se th e art ic le an d o ne cas e stud y refe rredto by Dr. Meierdi d n otpro vi de rel iabl e supp ort fo r hi s o pi ni on .

Daub ertv. Me rrel l Do w Pha rm aceu ti cal s, In c., 50 9 U.S. 5 79 (19 93 ). 1 5The reaf te r, th e Wils on s m ov edto reo pe n d is co ve ry so as t o d ep os e Dr. Bo werm anas t he ir e xp erton cau sa ti on . The co urt d en ie d t hi s m ot io n a s unt im el y . TASER ag ai n m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t, ar gu in g t ha t the W il so ns pr es en te d i ns uf

fic ie ntev id en ce o f cau sa ti on . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t m ed ic al ex pe rt t es ti m on y

was n eces sa ry

to supp ort the cau sa ti on ele m en t o f th e Wils on s’ fai lu re t o warn c la im , andth atbe cau se no adm is si bl e m ed ic al ex pe rt t es ti m on y reg ard in g c au sa ti onha d b een pre se nt ed , th atcla im fai le d. With ou t the fai lu re t o warncla im , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t the lo ss of c on so rti um an d p un it iv e da m ag es cla im s wer e al so de fic ie ntas am at te r of law. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ct co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o TASER o n a ll of the W il so ns ’ cl ai m s. Th e W il so ns fil eda ti m el y

ap pe al , cla im in g t ha t the di stric t co urt erred(1) inex cl ud in g Dr. Mei er’s cau sa ti ontes ti m on y an d (2 ) in gra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t t o TASER. 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Wil so ns als o a rg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinrequi rin g Dr. M ei er 2 to pro vi de anex pe rt r ep ort b ecau se Ru le 26 (a)( 2) (B) d oe s n otrequi re treat in g ph y si ci an s t o s ub m itex pe rt r ep orts reg ard in g t he ir d ia gn os es . W e co nc lu de , ho wev er, tha t thi s ar gu m en t i s n otge rm an e to th e ap pe al . The d is tri ctco urt d id no t ex cl ud e Dr. Mei er’s t es ti m on y forfai lu re t o s ub m itanex pe rt r ep ort; rathe r, aft er al lo win g e xt ra t im e in whi chto fil e anex pe rt r ep ort, the di st ric t co urt ex cl ud edDr. Mei er’s t es ti m on y as u nr el iabl e.

6W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran ts of s umm ary jud gm en t d e n ov o,

rev ie win g a ll fact s an d re as on ab le in fere nc es inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e no nm ov in g p arty , andap pl y in g t he same sta nd ardas the di st ric t co urt. Ro dg ers v. Si ng le ta ry , 14 2 F .3d12 52 , 12 53 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ); Ha le v. Tal lapo os a Co un ty, 50 F.3 d 1 57 9, 1 58 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) . A gran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te “ if th e p le ad in gs , dep os it io ns , ans wers to in te rro ga to rie s, an d a dm is si on s o n fi le , to ge th er wi th th e aff

id av it s, i f an y , sh ow tha t the re i s n o g enui ne is su e as to an y m at eri al factan d t ha t the m ov in g p arty is en ti tl edto a jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 (c). “ If the reco rdpre se nt s fa ctua l i ss ue s, the co urt m us t no t d eci de th em ; i t m

us t d en y th e m ot io n a ndpro ceedto tri al .” Cle m on s v . Dou gh erty

Co un ty, Ga., 68 4 F .2d13 65 , 13 69 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). A gran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t m ay

be up he ldon an y

ba si s s up po rte d b y

th e rec or d. Fi tz pa tri ckv. Ci ty of Atl an ta , 2 F.3 d 1 11 2, 1 11 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 3)
. W e rev ie w a de ci si onto ex cl ud e ex pe rt t es ti m on y un de r Daube rt f

orab us e of di sc ret io n. Gen eral Elec . Co. v . Jo in er, 5 22 U.S. 13 6, 1 38 -3 9 (1 99 7) . This de fere nt ia l s tand ardis no t re la xe d e ve n t ho ug h arul in g o n t he adm is si bi li ty of ex pe rt e vi de nc e m ay

be ou tc om e-d et erm in at iv e. Id . at 1 42 -4 3. “ Cas es ari se wher e itis ve ry m uc h am at te r of

di sc ret io n wi th th e co urt wh ethe r to rece iv e o r ex cl ud e th e ev id en ce; bu t the ap pe ll at e co urt wi ll no t re ve rs e in su cha cas e, un le ss th e 7ru li ng is m an ife st ly erron eo us .” Id . (qu ot in g S pr in g C o. v . Edg ar, 9 9 U.S. 6 45

(1 87 8) ); s ee al so N.V. Maat sc happ ij Voo r In du st rie le W aard env. A.O. Smit h Co rp ., 59 0 F .2d41 5, 4 18 (2dCir . 19 78 ) (p oi nt in g o utth atRu le 70 2, al th ou gh br oa de ni ng “ th e ran ge of a dm is si bl e ex pe rt t es ti m on y ,” do es no t al te r th e

“ m an ife st ly erron eo us ” st an da rdof r ev ie w). The b ur de n o f lay in g t he pro pe r fo un da ti on forth e ad mis si on of t he expe rt t es ti m on y is on th e p arty

off eri ng th e ex pe rt, andadm is si bi li ty m us t b e sh own by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Daube rt, 5 09 U.S. at 5 92 n.1 0 (c it in g B ou rjail y v. Un it edSta te s, 4 83 U.S. 17 1, 17 5- 76 (19 87 )). ANALYSIS (1 ) Dr. Meie r’s Ex pertTes timony W e fi rs t co ns id er the di stric t co urt’s d eci si on to ex cl ud e Dr. Mei er’s te st im on y un de r Daube rt. Fe de ral Evi de nc e Ru le 70 2 g ov ern s t he adm is si onof ex pe rt t es ti m on y

infed eral co urt: If s ci en ti fic , tec hn ic al , or o th er s pe ci al iz edkn owl ed ge wil l as si stth e tri er o f fac t t o u nd ers ta ndth e ev id en ce o r to de te rm in e a fac t i n i ss ue , a wit ne ss qu al ifi edas an e xp ertby kno wled ge , sk il l, ex pe rie nc e, tra in in g, o r educ at io n, m ay tes ti fy th eret o i n t he form

of a n o pi ni on or ot he rwis e, if

(1) th e te st im on y

is ba se d upo n s uf

fic ie ntfact s o r da ta , (2 ) th e te st im on y

is th e p ro du ctof r el iabl e p rin ci pl es an d m etho ds , an d (3 ) th e wit ne ss ha s ap pl ie d t he pri nc ip le s an d m etho ds rel iabl y to th e fac ts of t he cas e.

8Dis tri ctco urts ha ve a du ty und er Ru le 70 2 t o “ en su re tha t an y an d a ll sci en ti fic te st im on y or e vi de nc e adm it te d i s n oton ly relev an t, b utrel iabl e.” Daube rt, 5 09 U.S. at 5 89 . The W il so ns fir starg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e Daube rt te stto Dr. Mei er’s t es ti m on y was e rro r. As a treat in g p hysic ia n, the W il so ns ass ert th atDr. Mei er’s t es ti m on y reg ard in g h is “ ex am in at io ns an d d ia gn os is sh ou ldno t be subjec t t o a n e xt en si ve an al y si s u nd er Daube rt o r Kumho Tire.” Altho ug h we 3 ag ree t ha t a t reat in g p hysic ia n m ay tes ti fy as alay witn es s re ga rd in g h is ob se rv at io ns an d d eci si on s dur in g t reat m en t o f a p at ie nt , on ce the tre at in g ph y si ci anex pr es se s an op in io n un rel at edto tre atm en t wh ic h i s “ ba se d o n sc ie nt ifi c, te ch ni cal , or o th er s pe ci al iz edkn owl ed ge ,” th atwitne ss is off eri ng ex pe rt t es ti m on y

forwhi ch th e co urt m

us t p erfo rm

it s es se nt ia l g at ek eep in g fu nc ti on as r equi redby D aube rt. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Hend ers on , 40 9 F .3d12 93 , 13 00 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ); Lea th ers v .Pfi zer, In c., 23 3 F .R.D. 68 7, 6 88 (N.D. Ga. 20 06 ). Inth is cas e, al th ou ghDr. Mei er was th e tr eat in g p hysic ia n, h is op in io n reg ard in g t he cau se of Wil so n’s i nju rie s was no t n eed edto ex pl ai n h is de ci si on m ak in g p ro ces s, n ordi d i t p ert ai n t o Wil so n’s treatm en t. See Hend ers on , 40 9 F .3d Kumho Tire C o. v . Carm ic ha el , 52 6 U.S. 1 37 (19 99 ). 3 9at13 00 (ci ti ng Davo ll v. Webb , 19 4 F .3d11 16 , 11 38 (10 th Cir . 19 99 ) (“ A tre at in g

ph y si ci anis no t co ns id eredanex pe rt wi tn es s i f he or s he tes ti fie s ab ou t ob se rv at io ns ba se d o n p ers on al kn owl ed ge , in cl ud in g t he tre atm en t o f th e pa rty.”)). Dr. Mei er d idno t n eedto de te rm in e h ow Wils on was i nju redinord er t o tre athi m inth is cas e. Test im on y

reg ard in g h is di ag no si s o f th e in jury its el f - th at W il so n’s s pi ne was fr actur ed- wou ldbe pe rm is si bl e as lay tes ti m on y witho utth e Daube rt a na lysis , bu t h is st at em en t ab ou t the cau se of t he in jury w as an hypo th es is . “Andth e ab il it y to an swe r hypo th et ic al qu es ti on s i s t he ess en ti al di ffer en ce b etweenexpe rt a ndlay witn es se s.” Id . (ho ld in g tha t treat in g p hysic ia n pr ov id edex pe rt t es ti m on y wher e sh e expr es se d an o pi ni on on cau sa ti on wher e th e de te rm in at io n o f th e cau se of t he in jury didno t ai d i n t he tre atm en t the reo f) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ; s ee al so Daub ert , 50 9 U.S. at59 2. Dr. Me ie r’s op in io ns on cau sa ti on , th eref

or e, cl earl y

fal l wi th in Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 7 02 ’s sco pe of

“ sc ie nt ifi c kno wled ge ” an d m us t s at is fy

Daub ert . The W il so ns ne xtarg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n fin di ng th atDr. Mei er’s o pi ni on on cau sa ti on was u nr el iabl e. Dr. Mei er b as edhi s cau sa ti on op in io n o n (1 ) th e fac t tha t Wils on ’s in jury m an ife st edit se lf d ire ct ly aft er h is ex po su re t o t he TASER, (2) c on ve rs at io ns with andrep orts of Drs
.

10Bo werm anan d M ur ph y inwhi chth ey

st at edth ey

be li ev edTASER exp os ur e 4
co ul d h av e cau se d Wil so n’s co m pr es si on frac tu res , (3) on e art ic le rep orti ng a cas e in whi cha pa ti en t ex po se d t o TASER d ev el op edco m pr es si on frac tu res of t he sp in e, an d (4 ) th e o pi ni on of Dr. B ro wn, wh o c on du ct edanin de pe nd en t m ed ic al

5
ex am in at io n i n a no th er ca se in vo lv in g apa ti en t ex po se d t o aTASER dev ic e, th at su chexpo su re caus edth atpa ti en t’s s pi na l co m pr es si on frac tu res . The Wils on s 6 cl ai m th atDr. Mei er’s rel ia nc e o n t he op in io ns of h is co ll eag ue s i n fo rm in g h is op in io n i s an acce pt edm ed ic al pra ct ic e whi chrel iabl y supp orts hi s o pi ni on . They fu rth er ar gu e th atalt ho ug h Dr. M ei er i s ad m it te dl y no t an expe rt o n t he TASER de vi ce, o ne ne edno t kno w th e m ech an ic s o f ho w a TASER op erat es to ren de r an

Altho ug h h e d oe s n otm en ti on Dr. Murp hy in h is ex pe rt r ep ort, Dr. Me ie r 4 st at edat h is de po si ti onth athe rel ie d upo n Dr. M ur ph y ’s op in io n a ndex pe rti se in reac hi ng hi s co nc lu si on s. The d is tri ctco urt fo un d tha t thi s arti cl e was in su ffi ci en t t o p ro vi de rel iabl e 5 supp ort fo r Dr. Mei er’s o pi ni on be cau se th e art ic le “ co nt ai n[ ed ] on ly the bri efes t of de sc rip ti on s o f th e p at ie nt ’s in jury andtre atm en t, an d c on ta in [ed ] ve ry li tt le reas on in g t o s up po rt i ts co nc lu si on th atex po su re t o a n e le ctro ni c weap on m ay cau se a co m

pr es si on frac tu re.” Onap pe al , th e Wils on s d o n otob ject t o t hi s fin di ng of t he di st ric t co urt. The di st ric t co urt fo un d tha t Dr. Bro wn’s o pi ni on was a ls o i ns uf fic ie ntto 6 supp ort Dr. Me ie r’s op in io n b ecau se “ th e p la in ti ff i n t he ot he r cas e m ay ha ve ha d a v ery di ffer en t m ed ic al hi st ory , ph y si cal co nd it io n, an d c ou rs e o f tr eat m en t fr om Pl ai nt iff Davi d Wil so n.” The Wils on s al so do no t o bjec t t o thi s fi nd in g o f th e di st ric t co urt. 11op in io n t ha t s ev ere m us cl e co nt ract io ns cau se d b y anele ctric sh oc k c ancau se sp in al frac tu res . Fin al ly, th ey arg ue th atbe cau se th e in jury occu rreddi rect ly after th e TASER ex po su re an d n o o th er i nc id en ts expl ai n t he in jury, Dr. Mei er’s ex pl an at io n i s t he m os t p laus ib le . Accor di ng ly, th ey ass ertth atth e ex cl us io n o f hi s o pi ni on tes ti m on y

on cau sa ti on was i n e rro r. Inad dr es si ng th e rel iabi li ty of ex pe rt m etho do lo gy, “ [d ]istric t co urts ‘ ha ve subs ta nt ia l d is cret io n i n d eci di ng ho w to tes t an ex pe rt’s re li ab il it y .’ ” Ri nkv. Ch em in ov a, In c., 40 0 F .3d12 86 , 12 92 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Majo rs , 19 6 F .3d12 06 , 12 15 (11 th Cir . 19 99 )). InDaub ert , th e Supr em e Co urt s et ou t fo urno n- ex cl us iv e cri te riafor rel iabi li ty det erm in at io ns : “ (1 ) whe th er the ex pe rt’s m etho do lo gy has be entes te d o r is cap ab le of b ei ng tes te d; (2) whet he r th e te ch ni qu e h as be ensubjec te d t o p eer r ev ie w andpubl ic at io n; (3) th e kno wn an d po te nt ia l erro r rat e o f th e m etho do lo gy; an d (4 ) whe th er the tec hn ique ha s b een ge ne ral ly accep te d i n t he pro pe r sc ie nt ifi c co m m un it y .” McDo well v. Br own , 39 2 F.3 d 1 28 3, 1 29 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) (ci ti ng Daub ert , 50 9 U.S. at59 5) . Thes e fac to rs m ay gu id e a d is tri ctco urt’s re li ab il it y in qu iry, butth e d is tri ctco urt u lt im at el y ha s

“br oa d l at itud e” as to ho w itde te rm in es rel iabi li ty. Kumho Tire, 5 26 U.S. at 1 52 . W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng Dr. Mei er’s t es ti m on y . Sim pl y st at ed , Dr. Mei er d oe s n otm eetan y of t he Daub ert 12fact or s. He d idno t d em on st rat e th athi s o pi ni on th atTASER exp os ur e m ay cau se co m pr es si on frac tu res is tes tabl e; he di d n otoff er an y erro r rat e fo r hi s o pi ni on ; h e di d n otsh ow an y

ev id en ce tha t h is op in io n h as be enpe er re vi ewedor tha t h e u se d a p eer- rev ie wedso ur ce t o re ach hi s o pi ni on ; an d, fi na ll y , he d idno t s ho w th e ge ne ral acce pt an ce o f hi s o pi ni on . See Bo wers v. No rfo lkSo ut he rnCo rp ., 53 7 F . Supp . 2d13 43 , 13 53 -5 4 (M .D. Ga. 20 07 ). Dr. Mei er ad m it te dl y rel ie d upo n h is co ll eag ue s’ op in io ns inreac hi ng hi s co nc lu si on reg ard in g c au sa ti on , bu t, as th e di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly no te d, h e o ffer edno ba si s fo r hi s co ll eag ue s’ con cl us io ns . Not hi ng inth e rec or d i nd ic at es th atDrs. Bo werm anor M ur ph y - any m or e th an Dr. Mei er - re li edup on su ffi ci en t fa ct s an d app li eda rel iabl e m etho do lo gy in reac hi ng th ei r op in io ns th atW il so n’s i njury was c au se d b y

TASER exp os ur e. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g t he ir o pi ni on s anin su ffi ci en t b as is forDr. Mei er’s cau sa ti on tes ti m on y . Also , durin g h is de po si ti on , Dr. Mei er ad m it te d t ha t “ qu it e o st eo po ro ti c p at ie nt s ca n h av e sp on tane ou s v ert eb ral frac tu res jus t fr om m il d m ov em en ts an d fa ll s; ” n on ethe le ss , Dr. Mei er d idno t p erfo rm a di ffer en ti al di ag no si s o r an y tes ts on W il so n t o ru le ou t o st eo po ro si s an d t he se co rres po nd in g a lt ern at iv e m ech an is m s o f in jury. Altho ug h am ed ic al ex pe rt n eedno t ru le ou t ev ery po ss ib le alt ern at iv e in ord er t o fo rm anop in io n o n c au sa ti on , exp ertop in io n t es ti m on y is pro pe rly excl ud edas 13un rel iabl e if th e d oc to r “ en ga ge d i n v ery few s ta nd arddi ag no st ic tec hn ique s b y whi chdo ct or s n orm al ly rule ou t al te rn at iv e cau se s an d t he do ct oroff eredno go od ex pl an at io n a s t o wh y

hi s o r he r co nc lu si on rem ai ne d re li ab le ” o r if “ th e de fen da nt s p oi nt edto so m e li ke ly caus e o f th e p la in ti ff’s il ln es s o th er tha n t he de fen da nt s’ act io n a nd[th e d oc to r] offer edno reas on ab le ex pl an at io n a s t o wh y he orsh e st il l b el ie ve d t ha t the de fen da nt s’ act io ns were a s ub st an ti al fact orin br in gi ng ab ou t tha t i ll ne ss .” Whe atv. So fam or , S.N.C., 46 F. Sup p. 2 d 1 35 1, 1 35 8 (N.D. Ga. 19 99 ) (ci ti ng In r e Pao li Rai lro adYardPCB Li ti ga ti on , 35 F.3d71 7 (3 d Ci r. 19 94 )). Fu rth erm or e, al th ou gh a do ct orus ua ll y m ay pri m ari ly bas e h is op in io n a s t o th e cau se of apl ai nt iff

’s in juri es on hi s h is to ry

wher e th e p la in ti ff “ ha s s us ta in eda co m m on in jury in a way tha t i t co m

m on ly occu rs ,” a co m

pr es si onfrac tu re o f th e sp in e is no t the type o f in jury whi chco m

m on ly occu rs fro m

a sh oc k b y

a TASER. Bo wers , 53 7 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 35 4. Acco rd in gl y , Dr. Mei er co ul d n otrel y up on th e te m po ral co nn ect io n b etweenth e two ev en ts to supp ort h is cau sa ti on op in io n i n th is cas e. See Whea t, 4 6 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 35 9 (e xc lu di ng tes ti m on y wher e ex pe rt fai le d t o s ho w th atan y

ot he r ex pe rt h adreac he d h is same con cl us io n, l eav in g o nl y te m po ral rel at io ns hi p a s b as is forop in io n) . Ind eed , th e co m pl ex ity of t he cau sa ti on is su e in th is cas e und ers co res th e n eedforDr. Mei er t o h av e d on e m or e 14th ansi m

pl y ad op t Wils on ’s hi st ory

as h is cau sa ti on op in io n a ndop in e, witho ut sc ie nt ifi c supp ort, tha t a TASER co ul d s om eh ow h av e cau se d h is in jury. A
m ed ic al de gr ee d oe s n otau th or iz e Dr. Mei er t o t es ti fy when he do es no t b as e h is
m etho ds on va li d s ci en ce. See Flo res v. J oh ns on , 21 0 F .3d45 6, 4 64 (5th C ir. 20 00 ). The tri al co urt h as “ co ns id erab le lee way inde ci di ng ina pa rti cu lar cas e h ow to go ab ou t d et erm in in g wh ethe r pa rti cu la r ex pe rt t es ti m on y is rel iabl e.” Kumho Tire , 52 6 U.S. at15 2. In th is cas e, ap pl y in g t he Daub ertfact or s, the W il so ns si m pl y di d n otpro ve by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t Dr. Me ie r em pl oyed a rel iabl e m etho do lo gy to re ach hi s o pi ni on s. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we con cl ud e th at th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n e xc lu di ng Dr. Mei er’s o pi ni on s reg ard in g c au sa ti onas u nr el iabl e an d i na dm is si bl e. (2 ) Gra nt o f Summ ar y J udg m ent Bec au se we ha ve co nc lu de d t ha t Dr. Me ie r’s ex pe rt t es ti m on y was p ro pe rly ex cl ud ed , th e o nl y

is su e rem ai ni ng be fo re u s i s wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t wh ere t he reco rdco nt ai ne d n o e xp ertm ed ic al te st im on y on cau sa ti on . Bec au se th is act io n i s b as edon di ve rs it y , Geor gi a subs ta nt iv e st an da rd s o f la w m us t ap pl y . Erie R.R . Co. v . Tom pk in s, 3 04 U.S. 64 , 78 (19 38 ). Und er 15Geo rg iapro du ctli ab il ity law, a p la in ti ff m

us t p ro ve as p artof h is pri m a fac ie cas e th atth e d efen dant ’s pro du ctwas t he pro xi m at e cau se of t he in juri es all eg ed
. Bl ack st on v. Sh oo k & Fle tc he r In su la ti on Co ., 76 4 F .2d14 80 , 14 82 (11 th Cir
. 19 85 ); Tal le y

v. Ci ty T an k C or

p., 2 79 S.E.2d26 4, 2 69 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 81 ). “ As a ge ne ral rul e, is su es of c au sa ti on are fo r th e jury to re so lv e an d s ho ul d n otbe de te rm in edby a tria l co urt as a m at te r of law ex cep t i n p la in an d u nd is pu te d cas es .” Ogl etree v . Navi st ar In t’l Tran sp . Cor p., 2 45 Ga.App . 1, 3 -4 , 53 5 S .E.2d 54 5 (2 00 0) . In p ro du ctli ab il it y cas es , pro of

of c au sa ti on ge ne ral ly requ ire s rel iabl e ex pe rt t es ti m on y

whi ch is “ba se d, atth e le as t, o n t he de te rm in at io n t ha t th ere was a re as on ab le pr ob ab il it y th atth e n eg li ge nc e cau se d the in jury.” Ro dr ig ue s v . Geor gi a-Pa ci fic Co rp ., 66 1 S .E.2d14 1, 1 43 (Ga. Ct . App . 20 08 ) (em ph as is ad de d) ; s ee M aczk o v . Em pl oyers M ut . Liab . Ins . Co., 1 57 S.E.2d44 , 46 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 67 ) (“ The tes ti m on y m us t s ho w at l eas t a p ro babl e cau se , as di st in gu is he d fr om

a m ere p os si bl e cau se ”). Inth e al te rn at iv e, expe rt t es ti m on y st at edon ly in t erm s o f a “po ss ib le ” cau se maybe su ffi ci en t i f itis supp le m en te d by pro ba ti ve no n- ex pe rt t es ti m on y on cau sa ti on . Rod rig ue s, 6 61 S.E.2dat 1 43 . As d is cu ss edab ov e, th e in fere nc e th ata sh oc k b y a TASER canan d d id cau se co m

pr es si onfrac tu res inDavi d Wil so n’s s pi ne is no t a n atur al in fere nc e th at a juro r co ul d m ak e th ro ug h h um anex pe rie nc e. See M cDan ie l v . Em pl oyers M ut . 16Liab . Ins . Co., 1 21 S.E.2d80 1, 8 04 (Ga. Ct . App . 19 61 ). Ther efo re, m ed ic al

ex pe rt t es ti m on y

is ess en ti al to pro ve cau sa ti on inth is cas e. All is on v. Mc Gha n Med . Cor p., 1 84 F.3d13 00 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ap pl y in g Geo rg ialaw an d fi nd in g th atex pe rt m ed ic al tes ti m on y was e ss en ti al to pro ve th atsi li co ne bre as t i m pl an ts cau se d p la in ti ff’s s y st em ic di se as e); see als o S m it h v . Orth o P ha rm . Cor p., 7 70 F. Supp 15 61 , 15 65 (N.D. Ga. 19 91 ) (“ Sci en ti fic tes ti m on y by exp ertwitne ss es on th e is su e o f cau sa ti on pl ay s anin crea si ng ly vit al rol e in [Geo rg ia ] pr oduc ts li ab il it y li ti ga ti on .”). Inord er t o s urvi ve su m m ary jud gm en t, the W il so ns m us t ha ve pre se nt eda co m

pe te ntex pe rt wh o c ou ldtes ti fy “ to a reas on ab le de gr ee o f
m ed ic al cert ai nt y ” th atth e TASER cau se d h is in juri es , see All is on , 18 4 F .3dat 13 20 (no ti ng st an da rdto whi ch ex pe rt m us t t es ti fy ), or , inth e al te rn at iv e, th ey m us t h av e p res en te d m ed ic al tes ti m on y sh owi ng on ly a po ss ib il it y of acau sa l rel at io n b etweenth e TASER expo su re an d t he in jury in co nju nc ti on with o th er ev id en ce, n on -ex pe rt i n n atur e, in di cat in g t ha t s uc h arel at io n e xi st s. In th e ab se nc e o f su ch expe rt m ed ic al tes ti m on y as t o p ro babl e o r po ss ib le cau sa ti on , no ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factex is ts on th is ele m en t o f th e cl ai m , andth e d is tri ct co urt p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t fo r TASER. See An de rs on v. Lib erty Lob by, Inc., 4 77 U.S. 24 2, 2 52 (19 86 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atsu m m ary jud gm en t i s ap pr op ria te if t he re i s a l ackof s uf fic ie ntpro ba ti ve ev id en ce fo r th e p la in ti ffs ’ cas e 17be cau se th e, “ in qu iry inv ol ve d i n arul in g o n am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t . . . neces sa ril y

im pl ic at es th e subs tant iv e ev id en ti ary st an da rdof p ro of th atwou ld ap pl y at atri al on th e m eri ts ”). As we d is cu ss edab ov e, th e o nl y ex pe rt m ed ic al tes ti m on y on cau sa ti on pr of fere d b y th e Wils on s was pro pe rly excl ud edas u nr el iabl e. The Wil so ns , th eref or e, pr es en te d n o a dm is si bl e ex pe rt t es ti m on y ab ou t ei th er a p ro babl e o r po ss ib le cau sa l re la ti on be twee n t he TASER exp os ur e an d Wil so n’s i nju ry . Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atno pro ba ti ve ev id en ce s up po rte d ane ces sa ry el em en t o f th e Wils on s’ fai lu re t o warn c la im an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err in gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t fo r TASER on th is cla im an d t he ot he r cl ai m s de pe nd an t upo n tha t cl ai m . AFFIRMED.

18