On May 11, 2006, the Sixth Circuit decided Meridia Products Liability Litigation v. Abbott Laboratories, 447 F.3d 861 (6th Cir. 2006). In doing so, it underscored – yet again – the trial court’s gatekeeping role under Daubert by affirming the partial exclusion of a proffered medical expert and, in the process, summary judgment for the defense.
This multi-district products liability action alleged a variety of harms caused by Meridia, an anti-depressant marketed since 1998 as a prescription diet-drug. Among other things, the plaintiffs charged that Meridia causes high blood pressure, with resulting damage to the heart. In opposition to Abbott Lab’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs offered the expert testimony of several witnesses, including pharmacologist, Dr. Arnold Schwartz. The district court denied a defense motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ experts, but granted Abbott’s request that Dr. Schwartz be prohibited from testifying as to the physiological effects of high blood pressure. The exclusion was critical, resulting in summary judgment for the defense.
Affirming the summary judgment, the Sixth Circuit also found no abuse of discretion with the partial exclusion of Dr. Schwartz’s testimony. Although noting that Dr. Schwartz is an “indisputably qualified pharmacologist,” the court agreed that the scope of his expert testimony was appropriately limited to the alleged effect Meridia has on the body – temporarily heightened blood pressure in some patients – and that it would exceed his expertise to opine that the heightened blood pressure, in turn, poses a risk to cardiac health. In short, the Sixth Circuit noted, “the court faithfully articulated and applied the relevant factors in partially excluding Dr. Schwartz’s testimony.”
This latest decision underscores the importance of aggressively challenging the extent to which an otherwise qualified expert may testify. Here, an “indisputably qualified pharmacologist,” was permitted to testify within his expertise – pharmacology. The defense’s Daubert challenge, however, reaffirms that being an expert does not render everything that expert says as “expert testimony.” Here, it made the critical difference between a defense win and a defense loss.
Stan Graham is the Sixth Circuit Editor of Daubert Online, a member of the Steering Committee of DRI’s Employment Law Section, Regional Editor for the DRI Job Description, and Chair-Elect of the Tennessee Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Committee. Based in Nashville, he is a member of Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, PLLC, where he practices in the Labor and Employment Practice Group. He has for the past ten years represented employers nationwide in trial, litigation, and day-to-day labor and employment counseling, and is a regular speaker and author on legal issues arising in the workplace. He can be reached at Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, PLLC, 511 Union St., Suite 2700, Nashville, Tennessee 37219; (615) 850-8935 (direct); email: stan.graham@wallerlaw.com. For more information, see http://www.wallerlaw.com/attorney.cfm?currkey=115.
[PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION]
