Opinion ID: 164301
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Court's Decision to Grant Summary Judgment

Text: 44 Following the exclusion of Dr. Healy's testimony, the district court ruled that the Millers' claim must be dismissed as a matter of law because they had no scientific evidence of general causation. Miller v. Pfizer, 196 F.Supp.2d at 1125. The Millers contended at oral argument before us, however, that they had enough evidence to avoid summary judgment even without Dr. Healy's testimony because Pfizer made an admission that, in and of itself, establishes general causation. We need not address this argument because it was not raised in their appellate briefs. See Federal Ins. Co. v. Tri-State Ins. Co., 157 F.3d 800, 805 (10th Cir.1998). Nor have the Millers shown that they made this argument in district court. The district court's opinion states that [t]o support their claim of general causation, plaintiffs have relied exclusively on the testimony of Dr. Healy. Miller, 196 F.Supp.2d at 1125 (emphasis added). We need not consider an argument made for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Rogers Galvanizing Co., 128 F.3d 1380, 1385-86 (10th Cir.1997).