Court Opinion

ID: 9376463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 19:02:49.051056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:07.030618
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LAUREN SCOTTOLINE, individually           )
and as Parent and Guardian of J.S.S., a   )
Minor, and STEVEN SCOTTOLINE,             )
Parent of J.S.S., a Minor,                )
                                          )     C.A. No: N19C-08-135 AML
                   Plaintiffs,            )
                                          )
      v.                                  )
                                          )
WOMEN FIRST, LLC, and                     )
CHRISTIANA CARE HEALTH                    )
SYSTEM, INC.                              )
                                          )
                   Defendants.            )

                          Submitted: December 15, 2022
                             Decided: March 1, 2023

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

                Upon Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Unreliable
              Causation Opinion of Plaintiffs’ Expert: GRANTED.

Bruce L. Hudson, Esquire, and Joshua J. Inkell, Esquire of HUDSON & CASTLE
LAW, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Bradley J. Goewert, Esquire, and Thomas J. Marcoz, Jr., Esquire of MARSHALL
DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, Wilmington, Delaware, and
David Batten, Esquire of BATTEN LEE, Raleigh, North Carolina, Attorneys for
Defendant Women First, LLC.

John D. Balaguer, Esquire, and Roopa Sabesan, Esquire, of WHITE AND
WILLIAMS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant Christiana Care
Health System, Inc.

LEGROW, J.
      This is a medical negligence case stemming from the birth of a child. The

plaintiffs allege the child was deprived of oxygen during labor and delivery and

sustained several injuries as a result of the defendants’ negligent medical care. It is

undisputed that the child, now age seven, has an ongoing and permanent behavioral

syndrome that falls within the autism spectrum. The plaintiffs’ expert opines that

the brain injury the minor child sustained during delivery proximately caused the

behavioral condition that has been diagnosed as consistent with an autism spectrum

disorder. Accordingly, some of the damages the plaintiffs seek are associated with

that disorder.

      The defendants have moved to exclude the expert’s opinion that the brain

injury caused the minor child’s autism spectrum disorder. The defendants argue the

expert’s opinion is inadmissible under the rules of evidence because it is not

supported by appropriate scientific evidence. The defendants also argue the opinion

is inadmissible because it is not the product of a reliable methodology that

considered and excluded the other, diverse possible causes of an autism spectrum

diagnosis. Because the proffered expert’s opinion is not borne out by the evidence

he cites in support of his causation conclusion, and because he did not use a reliable

methodology to rule out the other potential causes for this condition, the expert

opinion is not admissible. The defendants’ motion therefore is granted.

                                          1
                FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       The minor child, J.S.S., was born at Christiana Hospital on July 28, 2015.

Four years later, J.S.S.’s parents filed this action against Christiana Care Health

Services, Inc. (“CCHS”) and Women First, LLC (“Women First” and collectively

with CCHS, “Defendants”), the practice that delivered J.S.S. Plaintiffs allege

Defendants’ negligence caused J.S.S. to be deprived of oxygen during the birth,

resulting in tissue and organ damage, including a permanent Hypoxic Ischemic

Encephalopathy (“HIE”) injury to his brain. The complaint alleges J.S.S. also

suffered injuries to other organs, including his kidneys, liver, and muscle systems as

a result of oxygen deprivation.

       J.S.S. was born with “no respiratory effort” and falling blood oxygenation

levels. He was intubated within five minutes of his birth and experienced seizures

approximately 20 minutes after his birth.               The treating neurologist’s and

neonatologist’s records indicate he was “extremely sick” and initial testing was

“consistent with severe encephalopathy.” J.S.S. was diagnosed with HIE six days

after he was born.

       J.S.S. spoke before his first birthday and walked at approximately 16 months.1

At 18 months, he stopped speaking. He slowly developed three-word sentences, but

1
 Defs.’ Mot. to Exclude Causation Opinion of Daniel Adler, M.D., Ex, 1, Report of Daniel Adler,
M.D. dated June 4, 2019 (hereinafter, the “First Adler Report”) at 2.

                                              2
those sentences rarely were purposeful.2 He began reading at age three but has

significant attention issues at school.3 J.S.S. receives Special Education services

along with occupational and speech therapy.4

       In 2017 and 2018, J.S.S.’s treating clinicians noted developmental delays and

behaviors “consistent with” an Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”) diagnosis.5 In

May 2018, J.S.S. was diagnosed with ASD by his school district.6             He was

reevaluated in February 2021, and that evaluation confirmed the previous ASD

diagnosis. Further testing showed significant developmental delays, including in

speech and language, social responsiveness, auditory comprehension, and

expressive language.7

       Plaintiffs filed this action on August 15, 2019 on behalf of J.S.S. and Lauren

Scottoline, J.S.S.’s mother. The Amended Complaint, filed March 2, 2021, alleges

Defendants provided negligent medical care while Lauren Scottoline was

hospitalized and during her labor and delivery with J.S.S., and Defendants’ alleged

negligence proximately caused J.S.S.’s injuries, including “physical injuries,

emotional pain and suffering past and future, increased risk of harm, loss of chance,

2
  Id. at 2.
3
  Id.
4
  Id. at 1-2.
5
  Pls.’ Response to Defs.’ Mot., Ex. A, at CCHS00480, 483-84, 485-86, 489.
6
  Id., Ex. B.
7
  Id., Ex. D at 2-3, 10-13, 56, 69.

                                              3
loss of enjoyment of life past and future, extensive medical bills past and future,

extensive lifetime care bills, [and] loss of earnings.”8

       One of Plaintiffs’ experts, Dr. Daniel Adler, is a pediatric neurologist whose

opinion Plaintiffs offer to prove causation and damages. Dr. Adler examined J.S.S.,

reviewed his medical history, and issued two reports in this matter: one report dated

June 4, 2019 (the “First Adler Report”) and the other dated July 14, 2021 (the

“Second Adler Report”).9 In the First Adler Report, after summarizing J.S.S.’s

relevant medical and social history, Dr. Adler opined that “all of J.S.S.’s

neurological and neurodevelopmental disabilities are the result of the hypoxic

ischemic brain injury [he] suffered during the labor and delivery process.” 10 More

specifically, Dr. Adler opined that his examination of J.S.S. “confirms that [his]

behavior falls within the autism spectrum,” and “while the causes of autism are

diverse, in this case, the cause of J.S.S.’s qualitative disturbance in social interaction

and play is [HIE].”11 Dr. Adler further opined that J.S.S.’s neurological injuries and

disabilities are permanent in nature, he will not be able to live independently or be

employed in the competitive job market, and he will “continue to require

extraordinary medical care.”12 The Second Adler Report confirmed that Dr. Adler’s

8
  Am. Compl. at 8.
9
  Defs.’ Mot. to Exclude Causation Opinion of Daniel Adler, M.D., Ex, 2, Report of Daniel Adler,
M.D. dated July 14, 2021 (hereinafter, the “Second Adler Report”).
10
   First Adler Report at 2-3.
11
   Id. at 3.
12
   Id. at 3.

                                               4
previous findings and opinions remained unchanged after his July 2021 examination

of J.S.S.13

       CCHS moved to exclude Plaintiffs from introducing at trial evidence that HIE

caused J.S.S.’s ASD, including any testimony to that effect by Dr. Adler.14 In

support of its motion, CCHS offers two independent bases to exclude Dr. Adler’s

opinion.      First, CCHS argues Dr. Adler’s opinion should be excluded under

Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 because Dr. Adler has not identified any scientific

data or study showing a causal link between HIE and ASD. CCHS contends the

articles Dr. Adler cited at most identify an association between ASD and HIE, which

is not enough to establish causation. Second, CCHS separately argues Dr. Adler’s

opinion should be excluded because he has not established specific causation with

respect to J.S.S. That is, Dr. Adler acknowledges there are numerous possible causes

of ASD, including genetics, but he did not rule out those other causes or utilize a

reliable methodology to conclude that J.S.S.’s ASD was caused by HIE.

       Plaintiffs respond that CCHS mischaracterizes Dr. Adler’s opinion as stating

that “HIE causes ‘Autism’” when his opinion “is that [J.S.S.] suffered an HIE injury

at birth which caused physical injuries and also neurological and neurobehavioral

symptoms consistent with [ASD].”15 Plaintiffs argue Dr. Adler’s opinion, once

13
   Second Adler Report at 2.
14
   Women First, LLC joined CCHS’s motion. See D.I. 163, 169.
15
   Pls.’ Response to Defs.’ Mot. at 4-5.

                                            5
properly characterized, is the product of his training and experience as a pediatric

neurologist, and he relied on four articles that “support his contention that an HIE

injury can produce certain behaviors that would fall within the autism spectrum.”16

Finally, Plaintiffs argue Dr. Adler made a differential diagnosis on the basis of his

examination of J.S.S. and review of his medical history.

                                       ANALYSIS

       Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 controls the admissibility of expert testimony.

Rule 702 allows a qualified expert to testify if (a) the expert’s specialized knowledge

will help the trier of fact understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue; (b) the

testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of

reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles

and methods to the facts of the case. The Delaware rule is substantially similar to

Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which the United States Supreme Court construed in

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.17 The Delaware Supreme Court has

expressly adopted Daubert and its progeny as the correct interpretation of Delaware

Rule of Evidence 702.18

16
   Id. at 13.
17
   509 U.S. 579 (1993).
18
   M.G. Bancorporation v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d at 513, 521 (Del. 1999).

                                              6
       Consistent with Daubert, Delaware courts apply a five-step test to determine

the admissibility of scientific or technical expert testimony.19 That test examines

whether:

       (a) the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,

           training, or education;

       (b) the evidence is relevant;

       (c) the expert’s opinion is based upon information reasonably relied upon by

           experts in the particular field;

       (d) The expert testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence

           or to determine a fact in issue; and

       (e) the expert testimony will not create unfair prejudice or mislead the jury.20

       A trial judge acts as a “gatekeeper” in deciding whether an expert’s opinion

has “a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline.”21

Ultimately, the Court will examine an expert’s opinion based on the expert’s

principles and methodology rather than on the conclusions generated.22 The party

seeking to introduce expert testimony bears the burden of establishing its

19
   Bowen v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 906 A.2d 787, 795 (Del. 2006).
20
   Id.
21
   Id. at 794 (quoting M.G. Bancorporation v. Le Beau, 737 A.2d at 523).
22
    Tumlinson v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 81 A.3d 1264, 1269 (Del. 2013) (quoting Daubert,
509 U.S. at 595).

                                              7
admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.23 There is a “strong preference”

for admitting expert opinions “when they will assist the trier of fact in understanding

the relevant facts or the evidence.”24

       I.     Dr. Adler’s causation opinion as to J.S.S.’s Autism Spectrum
              Disorder is not admissible because it does not have a reliable
              scientific basis.

       Once expert testimony is challenged, the reviewing court must ensure that the

proffered testimony is both relevant and reliable.25 Evidence is relevant if it would

assist the fact finder in “understand[ing] the evidence or determin[ing] a fact in

issue.”26 Expert testimony is reliable if it is premised on technical or specialized

knowledge, which requires the testimony to be grounded in reliable methods and

procedures and “supported by appropriate validation – i.e., ‘good grounds,’ based

on what is known.”27

       In his reports, Dr. Adler opines that all J.S.S.’s neurological and

neurodevelopmental disabilities are a result of the HIE injury he suffered during

labor and delivery.28 Dr. Adler confirmed that J.S.S.’s behavior “falls within the

autism spectrum.”29 While acknowledging that “causes of autism are diverse,” Dr.

23
    Bowen, 906 A.2d at 795.
24
    Norman v. All About Women, P.A., 193 A.3d 726, 730 (Del. 2018).
25
   Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993).
26
   Id. at 591 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 702).
27
    Id. at 590.
28
   First Adler Report at 3; Second Adler Report at 2.
29
   First Adler Report at 3; see also Second Adler Report at 2 (“J.S.S. remains a boy with . . . a
behavioral syndrome that is within the autism spectrum.”)

                                               8
Adler states that “in this case, the cause of J.S.S.[’s] qualitative disturbance of social

interaction and play is [HIE].”30 Dr. Adler’s reports do not further explain how he

reached this conclusion.

       Dr. Adler’s reports do not cite any article, study, or other authority in support

of his conclusion that HIE can cause ASD. When asked before and during his

deposition for the sources he relied on in forming his opinion, Dr. Adler identified

four medical articles as well as the diagnostic criteria for ASD listed in the DSM-

5.31 None of those sources, however, identify HIE as a cause of autism.

       The first article, titled “Long-Term Outcome After Neonatal Hypoxic-

Ischaemic Encephalopathy,” discusses outcomes for full-term infants with neonatal

encephalopathy with hypoxic-ischemic origin, and identifies cognitive and memory

difficulties that may continue into childhood even if the infant does not experience

motor deficits.32 The authors conclude that “childhood survivors of [neonatal

encephalopathy] . . . are at an increased risk of cognitive, behavioral and memory

problems.”33 The article identifies another study that “reported an elevated rate of

[ASD] in children with moderate and severe [neonatal encephalopathy],” but the

30
   First Adler Report at 3.
31
   Deposition of Daniel Adler, M.D., Nov. 2, 2021 (hereinafter cited as “Adler Dep.”) at 5-8.
32
   Linda S de Vries & Marian J Jongmans, Long-term Outcome after Neonatal Hypoxic-Ischaemic
Encephalopathy, ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD -FETAL AND NEONATAL ED., May 5, 2010,
at F220, Defs.’ Opening Br. Ex. 4.
33
   Id. at F223.

                                             9
article does not conclude that neonatal encephalopathy or HIE causes ASD.34 The

second article, a “Point of View” article titled “Neonatal Encephalopathy: An

Inadequate     Term     for   Hypoxic-Ischemic        Encephalopathy,”       addresses     the

terminology used to describe neonatal encephalopathy presumably caused by HIE

and discusses the imaging studies and human and animal studies conducted

regarding that disorder.35 The article describes the use and limitations of MRI to

diagnose HIE, but does not reference ASD.

       A third article, “Perinatal Features of Children with Autism Spectrum

Disorder,” offers a retrospective review of births of 75 children with ASD.36 The

article identifies findings showing “a higher prevalence of prematurity, low birth

weight, and perinatal asphyxia among children with ASD,” but notes that the

retrospective study design and small sample size were limitations to the study and

that “Large prospective studies are needed to clarify the possible association

between perinatal complications and ASD.”37 The fourth article, “Long-Term

Medical and Social Consequences of Preterm Birth,” discusses various medical and

social disabilities associated with preterm birth.38 That article, which was based on

34
   Id.
35
   Joseph J. Volpe, M.D., Neonatal Encephalopathy: An Inadequate Term for Hypoxic-Ischemic
Encephalopathy, ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY, 2012, Defs.’ Opening Br. Ex. 5.
36
   Gabriela F. Fezer et al., Perinatal Features of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, THE
REVISTA PAULISTA DE PEDIATRIA, (2017), Defs.’ Opening Br. Ex. 6.
37
   Id. at 130 (emphasis added).
38
   Dag Moster, M.D., Ph.D., et al., Long-Term Medical and Social Consequences of Preterm Birth,
THE New ENG. J. of MED. (2008), Defs.’ Opening Br. Ex.7.

                                              10
a cohort of people born in Norway between 1967 and 1983, states that a recent study

“showed an association of preterm birth with features of the autism spectrum,” but

cautioned that the findings were based on a very small number of cases in the lowest

gestational age groups.39 Finally, the DSM-5 identifies the characteristics of ASD

but does not identify HIE as a potential cause for ASD.40

      Defendants do not contest that Dr. Adler is a well-qualified expert. They

instead argue that Dr. Adler’s opinion is not reliable because he has not identified a

scientific basis, including the sources discussed above, to support his opinion that

HIE causes ASD. Plaintiffs respond that Defendants are mischaracterizing Dr.

Adler’s opinion, that his actual opinion is “that the qualitative disturbance of social

interaction suffered by J.S.S. is caused by his HIE brain injury,”41 and that the

articles Dr. Adler cites support his contention that “an HIE injury can produce certain

behaviors that would fall within the autism spectrum.”42

      Plaintiffs’ arguments are unconvincing.            First, Defendants do not

mischaracterize Dr. Adler’s opinion. If anything, it is Plaintiffs who do so. Dr.

Adler opined that J.S.S.’s behavior falls within the autism spectrum and that the

cause of his disturbances in social interaction and play is HIE.43 In their opposition

39
   Id. at 265-66.
40
   See CTR. FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA, AUTISM SPECTRUM
DISORDER (ASD) (2019), Defs.’ Opening Br. Ex. 8.
41
   Pls.’ Response to Defs.’ Mot. at 10.
42
   Id. at 13.
43
   First Adler Report at 3.

                                          11
to the motion in limine, Plaintiffs suggest that although J.S.S. was diagnosed with

ASD for purposes of receiving educational supports and other therapies, that

diagnosis was not appropriate under the DSM-5 because his behavioral disturbances

were better explained by a global developmental delay.44 But Dr. Adler never

offered this opinion in his reports. Rather, during his deposition, Dr. Adler agreed

with J.S.S.’s ASD diagnosis and confirmed that it is his opinion that HIE is one of

the causes of ASD.45

      Second, Dr. Adler’s opinion—that HIE is one cause of ASD—lacks a reliable

scientific basis. At most, the articles he cited identify an association between HIE

and ASD. Dr. Adler could not point to any published medical studies or literature

stating that HIE causes ASD.46 He acknowledged that a statistical association does

not imply causation and explained that a statistical association means two conditions

are “related to each other but not necessarily linked in terms of cause. You see them

together, but they’re not necessarily causal, meaning you could see hypoxia with

autism but hypoxia doesn’t necessarily cause autism.”47         Studies showing an

association between two conditions are not, standing alone, sufficient evidence to

support an opinion as to causation.48 For example, a recent decision of this Court

44
   See Defs.’ Opening Br. at 5-8.
45
   Adler Dep. at 84, 86-88.
46
   Id. at 96-97.
47
   Id. at 93.
48
   See Wilant v. BNSF Railway Co., 2020 WL 2467076, at *4-5 (Del. Super. May 13, 2020)
(partially vacated on other grounds, 2020 WL 3887881 (Del. Super. July 9, 2020)).

                                         12
excluded expert testimony as to causation of the plaintiff’s bladder cancer because

the medical evidence cited in support of that opinion identified, at most, a positive

association between bladder cancer and the diesel fume exposure at issue in that

case.49 The Court concluded the expert’s opinions were not borne out by the

evidence he cited in support of his opinion.50 The same is true here.

       Plaintiffs also invoke Dr. Adler’s training and experience as sufficient support

for his opinion.51 But Plaintiffs cannot cite Dr. Adler’s training and experience as a

pediatric neurologist without explaining how that experience leads to Dr. Adler’s

conclusions, why the experience is a sufficient basis to support the conclusion, or

how the experience was applied to the facts in this case.52 Plaintiffs have not done

so in this case, and for all the foregoing reasons Dr. Adler’s opinion that J.S.S.’s HIE

injury caused his ASD or behaviors diagnosed as ASD is not reliable under Rule

702.

49
   Id. at 5.
50
   Id.; See also Melnick v. Consolidated Edison, Inc., 959 N.Y.S.2d 609, 623 (N.Y. Supreme Feb.
15, 2013) (conducting an analysis under Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) and barring
plaintiffs’ expert from offering an opinion that the minor child’s diagnoses of autism or pervasive
developmental disorder were caused by her preterm delivery with a low birth weight because the
opinion “was not based on generally accepted science,” would be “pure speculation,” and required
too great an analytical gap between the statistical associations in the expert’s cited studies and the
actual facts of the case).
51
   Pls.’ Response to Defs.’ Mot. at 11.
52
   FED. R. EVID. 702, Advisory Committee Notes for 2000 Amendments (“If the witness is
relying solely or primarily on experience, then the witness must explain how that experience
leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and
how that experience is reliably applied to the facts. The trial court’s gatekeeping function
requires more than simply ‘taking the expert’s word for it.’”) (citing Daubert, 43 F.3d 1311,
1319 (9th Cir. 1995)).

                                                 13
       II.    Dr. Adler’s opinion as to J.S.S.’s Autism Spectrum Disorder also is
              not admissible because it is not the product of a reliable
              methodology and amounts to little more than the expert’s ipse dixit
              conclusions.

       Even if the Court concluded that Dr. Adler’s opinion as to the causal link

between HIE and ASD was reliable as a general matter, the opinion nevertheless

fails to satisfy Rule 702’s admissibility standard because Dr. Adler did not employ

a reliable methodology to conclude that J.S.S.’s ASD was caused by HIE as opposed

to another possible cause.        When a disease or disorder has several possible

independent causes, an expert must “employ a definitive scientific process to rule in

and rule out” the many potential causes of the disorder before reaching a

conclusion.53

       For example, in Minner v. American Mortgage & Guaranty Co., this Court

excluded an expert’s opinion that the plaintiffs’ illnesses were caused by exposure

to toxic agents found within the building where the plaintiffs worked because the

expert failed to account for and eliminate other possible causes for those syndromes.

The Court explained that “[t]he fatal flaw [in the expert’s opinion was] that she

refused to adequately consider, and eliminate, other possible causes of the Plaintiffs’

illnesses through a definitive scientific process.”54 In Minner, there was no known

53
   Scaife v. AstraZeneca LP, 2009 WL 1610575, at *16 (Del. Super. Jun. 9, 2009) (citing Minner
v. American Mortg. & Guar. Co., 791 A.2d 826, 854 (Del. Super. 2000)).
54
   Minner, 791 A.2d at 854.

                                             14
cause of the particular illness at issue, and the expert did not provide a consistent

diagnostic or scientific methodology to exclude other possible causes of the illness.55

       The same is true of Dr. Adler’s opinion. Dr. Adler concedes there is no

scientific study showing a causal link between HIE and ASD, and that there are

numerous potential causes of ASD, including genetic disorders associated with

autism.56 Moreover, Dr. Adler testified that ASD is a common diagnosis and is four

times more common among boys than it is among girls.57 Although the disease is

common, has no established cause, and has many potential causes, Dr. Adler’s

reports do not make any attempt to distinguish J.S.S.’s diagnosis and rule out those

other potential causes. Instead, Dr. Adler opines in a conclusory manner that HIE

caused J.S.S.’s behavioral conditions that fall within the autism spectrum. That ipse

dixit opinion is not based on a reliable methodology and therefore is not admissible

under Rule 702.

                                  CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs are precluded from introducing at trial

Dr. Adler’s opinion or testimony that Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy caused

J.S.S.’s behavioral syndrome that falls within the autism spectrum. IT IS SO

ORDERED.

55
   Id. at 854.
56
   Adler Dep. at 99-100.
57
   Id. at 116-17.

                                          15