Opinion ID: 1919140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: district court excludes frank's testimony

Text: The district court concluded that Frank was imminently qualified to give expert medical testimony. But in sustaining BNSF's motion to exclude Frank's testimony, it concluded that his opinion was unreliable because it did not have general acceptance in the field. The court also concluded that Frank's opinion regarding multiple myeloma was unreliable because of his methodology. The court stated that Frank relied on one study that showed a significant association between diesel exhaust and multiple myeloma. But it concluded that Frank could point to no single study that conclusively states that exposure to diesel exhaust/benzene causes multiple myeloma. In discussing Frank's differential etiology, the district court determined that it was also unreliable for three reasons: (1) The record did not show what causes other th[a]n diesel exhaust exposure Frank considered in his differential etiology; (2) Frank `ruled in' diesel exhaust exposure as a possible cause, even though no medical or scientific study concluded that such exposure causes multiple myeloma; and (3) Frank failed to explain why he `ruled out' any other potential causes. The court stated that Frank's opinion merely concludes that diesel exhaust exposure is [the] most probable [agent], even though no medical or scientific study authorizes such a conclusion. The court sustained BNSF's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that BNSF had satisfied its burden of demonstrating that no causal connection existed between Bradley's employment, including his exposure to diesel exhaust, and his development of multiple myeloma.