Brief Fact Summary. Joiner (Plaintiff) was exposed to PCBs and diagnosed with cancer. PCBs are dangerous to human health. Plaintiff sued General Electric Co. (Defendant) for “promoting” his cancer.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review of a district court’s evidentiary ruling, i.e. did the district court abuse its discretion in granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment?
Issue. Was Plaintiff’s case properly dismissed on Defendant’s Motion for Summary judgment?
Held. Yes. Judgment reversed. The district court’s ruling was affirmed.
* Abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review of a district court’s evidentiary ruling; did the district court abuse its discretion in granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment? Under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Frye case, the trial judge is the “gatekeeper” in screening evidence. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion.
* The animal studies upon which Plaintiff relied did not support his contention that exposure to PCBs had contributed to his cancer. No study demonstrated that adult mice developed cancer after being exposed to PCBs. One of the experts admitted that no study had demonstrated that PCBs led to cancer in any other species. The studies were so dissimilar to the facts presented in this litigation that is was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to have rejected Plaintiff’s reliance on them.
* A court may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinions proffered.
Concurrence. (Justice Breyer) The trial judge is the gatekeeper of evidence, however, judges are not scientists and should be strongly encouraged to utilize their inherent authority to appoint experts.
* (Justice Stevens), concurring in part and dissenting in part. The court of appeals expressly decided that a “weight of the evidence” approach was scientifically acceptable. That opinion is persuasive. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses the same type of evidence as the Plaintiff. The evidence as a whole raises an inference that PCBs promote lung cancer. The court has not held that it would have been an abuse of discretion to admit the expert testimony.
These conventional devices, rather than wholesale exclusion under an uncompromising general acceptance test, are the appropriate safeguards where the basis of scientific testimony meets the standards of Rule 702.View Full Point of Law