Opinion ID: 3048777
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Expert Testimony of Dr. Cohen 2

Text: Both sides introduced expert testimony at trial. Dr. Robert Bloome, D.O., Ramirez’s expert, testified that Benlate likely caused Ramirez’s injuries. By contrast, Dr. Cohen testified that none of the four chemical contaminants in Benlate at issue—Atrazine, Benomyl, Flusilazole, and Chlorothalonil—were related to any of Ramirez’s tumors. Dr. Cohen is a licensed medical doctor with a Ph.D. in cancer research. His research for over forty years has focused on the chemical causation of cancer and the mechanism by which that occurs, and he is a leading expert in this field. He receives some funding from private companies to investigate certain company findings and studied the chemical Flusilazole for DuPont. Dr. Cohen based his opinion that Benlate was not the cause of Ramirez’s injuries on his review of scientific literature on the chemicals, documents from the 1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). 2 We question whether this issue was timely raised before the district court in such a way that it has been preserved for appeal. Ramirez’s pretrial motion to strike Dr. Cohen’s testimony was not timely filed. Also, Ramirez did not move to exclude Dr. Cohen’s testimony at trial or request a Daubert hearing after Dr. Cohen gave the purportedly objectionable testimony, instead waiting until after the jury verdict to take any action. Nonetheless, because the district court addressed this issue on the merits in response to Ramirez’s post-trial motion, we also address the merits of this issue. 4 Case: 11-10035 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 5 of 14 Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and DuPont, Ramirez’s medical records, and the depositions of Ramirez and Ramirez’s expert witness, Dr. Bloome, and on his personal research and experience. Dr. Cohen explained the process by which the scientific community goes about determining whether a particular chemical causes cancer in humans, which involves extrapolating from animal studies and applying various “safety factors.” The EPA had done this type of risk assessment for the farming chemicals at issue in this case and established maximum exposure levels. The maximum level of exposure allowed by the EPA for Benlate is based on a lifetime of occupational exposure of 35-40 years. Even making “maximal types of assumptions” about Ramirez’s level of exposure to the chemicals, Dr. Cohen opined that his exposure was well below the amount allowed by the EPA. Thus, assuming that the animal studies showing the chemicals to have some cancer-causing potential are relevant to humans, the level of Ramirez’s exposure was well below that needed to cause tumors, according to Dr. Cohen. Moreover, based on Ramirez’s medical records, Dr. Cohen explained that Ramirez’s tumors were unrelated to one another. In his general practice as a surgical pathologist, Dr. Cohen often is asked to evaluate tumors to determine whether they are cancerous, and he has direct experience working with the kinds of tumors Ramirez had. According to Dr. Cohen, the tumor in Ramirez’s head or neck likely was not cancerous, and farming chemicals were not a known risk factor 5 Case: 11-10035 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 6 of 14 for that type of tumor. Ramirez had clear-cell carcinoma of the kidney, the most common type of kidney cancer. The major risk factors for Ramirez’s kidney cancer are obesity, hypertension, high blood pressure, cigarette smoking, and possibly diabetes, which usually is present in conjunction with obesity and high blood pressure. Ramirez’s medical records showed a history of these risk factors. In addition, exposure to farm chemicals is not known to increase the risk of kidney cancer, and studies had shown that farmers generally had a decreased risk of developing tumors than the general population. Finally, the tumor in or around Ramirez’s pancreas appeared to be an “islet cell tumor,” a less common type of tumor that arises from cells in the pancreas that produce insulin. Under Rule 702, Fed. R. Civ. P., which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, “a district court acts as a gatekeeper to keep out irrelevant or unreliable expert testimony.” United States v. Ala. Power Co., 730 F.3d 1278, 1282 (11th Cir. 2013). In performing this gatekeeping function, trial courts should consider three basic requirements: qualification, reliability, and helpfulness to the jury. United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc). The reliability of scientific expert opinion depends on “whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and . . . whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.” Id. at 1261-62 (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 52-93, 113 6 Case: 11-10035 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 7 of 14 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)). In its role as gatekeeper, however, the district court should not supplant the adversary system or the role of the jury. Ala. Power Co., 730 F.3d at 1282. Rather, “[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596, 113 S. Ct. 2786. Ramirez contends that the district court should have excluded the testimony of DuPont’s expert, Dr. Cohen, on both a procedural and a substantive basis. Procedurally, he asserts that Dr. Cohen’s testimony was inadmissible because DuPont failed to disclose the documents upon which Dr. Cohen relied. Substantively, Dr. Cohen’s opinion as to the legal cause of Ramirez’s injuries was speculative and inadmissible under Daubert, according to Ramirez, because it was not based on sufficient and reliable facts and data regarding the specific Benlate that Ramirez used in his farming operations. Ramirez asserts that Dr. Cohen improperly assumed, at DuPont’s direction, that the Benlate he used contained chemical quantities lower than the maximum amount allowed by the EPA and therefore was “safe.” With respect to disclosure of the materials upon which Dr. Cohen relied, we find that DuPont adequately complied with Rule 26. Ramirez does not assert that DuPont failed to disclose reliance materials but rather that DuPont did not 7 Case: 11-10035 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 8 of 14 physically produce those materials. But Ramirez’s motion to exclude Dr. Cohen on the basis of lack of production was untimely, and Ramirez was not prejudiced by any failure to disclose, given that he could have requested production of the materials during discovery but, for whatever reason, did not do so. Ramirez may not use his own apparent decision not to seek the materials as a basis for later seeking to exclude Dr. Cohen. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez’s motion to strike Dr. Cohen’s testimony on that basis. Furthermore, we disagree with Ramirez’s contention that Dr. Cohen’s trial testimony should have been excluded because it was speculative and based on insufficient facts and data. Dr. Cohen clearly was qualified to testify as an expert as to whether the chemicals in Benlate caused Ramirez’s cancer and tumors. And Dr. Cohen’s expertise on the chemical causation of cancer and the mechanism by which that occurs was helpful to the jury in determining whether the chemicals at issue caused Ramirez’s injuries. Therefore, the key question is whether Dr. Cohen’s testimony was reliable. Under the circumstances, Ramirez has not shown, and we cannot say, that Dr. Cohen’s reasoning or methodology applied to the facts in issue was unsupported or unreliable. See Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1261-62. We find no support in the record for Ramirez’s assertion that DuPont told Dr. Cohen to assume that 8 Case: 11-10035 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 9 of 14 Benlate was safe or that the expert himself simply assumed as much. As Ramirez notes, there was no record evidence showing the actual quantities of the chemicals in the Benlate used by Ramirez, and Ramirez’s actual exposure would also depend on various contextual factors, such as the safety equipment and procedures Ramirez used when mixing and spraying the chemicals. Thus, certainty was not possible in this context, nor do we require absolute certainty from expert testimony. Jones v. Otis Elevator Co., 861 F.2d 655, 662 (11th Cir. 1988). Dr. Cohen identified the foundations and reasoning behind his opinions about Ramirez’s likely level of exposure, and Ramirez was free to, and in fact did, challenge these foundations during trial. The purported deficiencies identified by Ramirez go to the weight of Dr. Cohen’s testimony, not its admissibility. See id. at 663. Dr. Cohen relied on documents from DuPont and the EPA and scientific literature to come to his conclusions regarding Ramirez’s likely level of exposure. While Ramirez argues that this information was inaccurate because DuPont failed to report higher concentrations of the chemicals to the EPA, or actively misrepresented such information, this evidence does not render Dr. Cohen’s testimony unreliable. Rather, this type of evidence is appropriate for cross-examination or rebuttal, “the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596, 113 S. Ct. 2786. Indeed, it appears that Ramirez was 9 Case: 11-10035 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 10 of 14 successful in convincing the jury that Benlate was not safe. Yet, as explained below, the fact that the product was defective does not necessarily mean that the product caused Ramirez’s injuries. Moreover, Dr. Cohen’s testimony regarding the nature of Ramirez’s cancer and tumors was unconnected to any assumptions about Ramirez’s level of chemical exposure. Consequently, to the extent that Dr. Cohen’s assumptions regarding the chemical quantities in Benlate were defective, which, as explained above, we cannot say that they were, that defect would not be fatal to Dr. Cohen’s testimony as a whole. See McClain, 401 F.3d at 1245 (stating that a defect is fatal under Daubert when any step in the analysis is unreliable). We also disagree with Ramirez’s contention that Dr. Cohen’s testimony was unreliable because he did not engage in a differential diagnosis or explain the cause of Ramirez’s tumors. Instead, we agree with the district court that Ramirez, as the plaintiff, bore the burden of proving that Benlate caused his injuries. DuPont did not need to prove, and its expert did not need to testify to, what actually caused his injuries. For these reasons, we defer to the district court’s decision not to strike Dr. Cohen’s trial testimony. See Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1258-59. Ramirez therefore is not entitled to a new trial or judgment as a matter of law on this basis. 10 Case: 11-10035 Date Filed: 09/11/2014 Page: 11 of 14