Supreme Court Attempts to Clarify Some Daubert Points (1998)

Writing in the January newsletter of the Products Liability Committee. Bruce R. Parker of Baltimore's Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Gray discusses the Joiner case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court undertook to clarify the standard of review and the methodology-conclusions dichotomy under Daubert: Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), state courts have differed in their interpretations of related issues, including the appropriate standard of review for a trial judge's decision regarding admissibility of scientific evidence. In an opinion issued on December 15, 1997, General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 118 S.Ct. 512, the Supreme Court provided additional guidance with respect to some of these issues. Although the Court originally granted certiorari in Joiner to determine the applicable standard of review for a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony under Daubert, the Court also expounded on the issue of whether courts can look at experts' conclusions, in addition to their methodology, in assessing admissibility under Daubert. While the Court's dictum in Daubert specifically limited the trial judge's admissibility inquiry to the expert's methodology, the Supreme Court has now expanded the trial court's discretion to encompass the expert's conclusions. Furans and dioxins Robert Joiner and his wife originally filed suit in Georgia state court against the manufacturers of electrical transformers and voltage regulators containing PCBs and derivative furans and dioxins. Joiner, 78 F.3d 524 (1I th Cir. 1996). Joiner was the chief electrician in the City of Thomasville, Georgia, a position that entailed working with the city's electrical transformers and the dielectric fluid in the transformers. Although the transformers should have contained a fluid that was free of PCBs, it was subsequently discovered that the dielectric fluid was, in fact, contaminated with PCBs. He sued the manufacturers, alleging that he contracted cancer as a result of exposure to these products in the workplace. The manufacturers removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment, alleging that there was no admissible scientific evidence that PCBs caused Joiner's cancer, nor was there was no evidence that Joiner was significantly exposed to PCBs, furans or dioxins. In response, Joiner offered the affidavits and depositions of expert witnesses who testified that PCBs, furans and dioxins promote cancer, and that they were indeed responsible for Joiner's cancer. Dr. Arnold Schecter, a professor of preventative medicine at State University of New York, Binghamton, and a full-time researcher of health effects of various toxic substances encountered in the workplace, testified that he believed it likely than not that Mr. Joiner's cancer was causally linked to cigarette smoking and PCB exposure. Schecter has published more than 100 articles and has served on the editorial boards of scientific and medical journals. 78 F.3d at 531, n.8. Dr. Daniel Teitelbaum, a cofounder of the American Academy of Medical Toxicology, testified that Joiner's lung cancer was caused by or contributed to in a significant degree by the materials with which he worked. Teitelbaum has published more than 40 articles and teaches graduate level courses in occupational and environmental toxicology and the epidemiology of disease. He also is a practicing toxicologist, who has lectured on medical toxicology/epidemiology for federal judges. Expert testimony fails The district court found that despite the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Joiner had been exposed to PCBs, there was no issue as to whether he had been exposed to furans and dioxins. The court further concluded that the expert testimony offered failed to demonstrate a connection between exposure to PCBs and small-cell cancer. …