Opinion ID: 3205926
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Harrison

Text: The district court excluded Dr. Harrison’s general causation report and testimony because, in its view, Dr. Harrison’s opinions left too great an analytical gap between the data upon which he relied and the opinions he proffered, making his opinions unreliable. The district court found that: (1) 4 Case: 15-30592 Document: 00513516686 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 No. 15-30592 Dr. Harrison made no attempt to demonstrate why benzene-specific studies could reliably support his conclusion that gasoline can cause AML, or to explain or demonstrate how he extrapolated his findings with respect to gasoline from benzene studies; (2) Dr. Harrison failed to cite to any gasolinespecific literature; and (3) Dr. Harrison’s “me too” approach in relying on Dr. Infante’s report lacked any independent analysis and was therefore unreliable. While “[t]rained experts commonly extrapolate from existing data,” the Supreme Court has held that “nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.” General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). In such a situation, “[a] court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Id. We cannot say that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to conclude that Dr. Harrison’s opinions were unreliable. As the district court noted, the scientific literature Dr. Harrison relied upon in preparing his report considered benzene, rather than gasoline containing benzene. Dr. Harrison made no attempt to demonstrate how benzene-specific studies could reliably support his conclusion that gasoline containing benzene can cause AML, or to explain or demonstrate how he extrapolated his findings with respect to gasoline from the benzene studies. Further, Dr. Harrison did not refer to any gasoline-specific literature. The district court made specific and detailed findings with respect to these and other deficiencies in Dr. Harrison’s opinions, and we cannot conclude from our review of the record that the district court’s conclusions in this regard were an abuse of discretion. The district court’s exclusion of Dr. Harrison’s report and testimony will be affirmed. 5 Case: 15-30592 Document: 00513516686 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/23/2016 No. 15-30592