Case Name: Betty J. BROWN, personal representative for the estate of Robert D. Brown, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST DATABANK, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Albert Johary, Dr., et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-27
Citations: 218 F. App'x 907
Docket Number: No. 06-15582
Parties: Betty J. BROWN, personal representative for the estate of Robert D. Brown, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST DATABANK, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Albert Johary, Dr., et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 907–908

Head Matter:
Betty J. BROWN, personal representative for the estate of Robert D. Brown, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST DATABANK, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Albert Johary, Dr., et al., Defendants.
No. 06-15582
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 27, 2007.
David Leon Ashford, Matthew C. Min-ner, Sandra Payne Hagood, Hare, Wynn, Newell and Newton, L.L.P., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
James Allen Sydnor, Jr., Thomas Kelly May, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The district court, exercising its gate-keeping function under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), found that the methodology used by appellant's expert witness, Dr. Sims, was not sufficiently reliable to support Sims's opinion that a causal relationship existed between the decedent's use of Metoclopram-ide and the decedent's depression and eventual suicide. Having made that finding, the court excluded Dr. Sims's opinion and granted appellee summary judgment. This appeal followed.
This appeal turns on one issue: whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Sims's opinion on the ground that her methodology was unreliable. After examining the record on which the court made its finding, we conclude that the court's exclusion of the proffered opinion was not an abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.