Opinion ID: 76908
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reliance on Anecdotal Case Reports

Text: 104 In defending his methodology, Hakim also testified about case reports that he found in the medical literature. The case studies involve reports by doctors about patients whom the doctor suspects suffered a serious adverse reaction to ephedrine. These reports are anecdotal, meaning that they are based on descriptions of unmatched individual cases rather than on controlled studies. DORLAND'S, supra, at 76. Because they are anecdotal, case studies lack controls and thus do not provide as much information as controlled epidemiological studies do.... Causal attribution based on case studies must be regarded with caution. Henifin, supra, at 475. 105 We in fact discussed the value of case reports in Rider, explaining that: 106 Much of the plaintiffs' expert testimony relied on case reports in which patients suffered injuries subsequent to the ingestion of Parlodel. Although the court may rely on anecdotal evidence such as case reports, ... courts must consider that case reports are merely accounts of medical events. They reflect only reported data, not scientific methodology.... Some case reports do contain details of the treatment and differential diagnosis. Even these more detailed case reports, however, are not reliable enough, by themselves, to demonstrate the causal link the plaintiffs assert that they do because they report symptoms observed in a single patient in an uncontrolled context. They may rule out other potential causes of the effect, but they do not rule out the possibility that the effect manifested in the reported patient's case is simply idiosyncratic or the result of unknown confounding factors. As such, while they may support other proof of causation, case reports alone ordinarily cannot prove causation. 107 295 F.3d at 1199 (internal citations omitted). Simply stated, case reports raise questions; they do not answer them. 108 This analysis of the value and limitations of case reports is important in this case for two reasons. First, it explains something about Hakim's differential diagnosis method. If he had taken his findings and opinions about these four Plaintiffs and submitted them to a medical journal for publication, they would simply be case reports — anecdotal information, nothing more. Second, in light of all the other failures of proof on the reliability of their methods, Plaintiffs' experts cannot now redeem their opinions with this type of anecdotal evidence. They do not offer the underlying toxicological data in a scientifically reliable form to satisfy Daubert. Anecdotal evidence will not cure that failure. 109