Goeb v. Tharaldson
615 N.W.2d 800, 31 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20101, 2000 Minn. LEXIS 479 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Minnesota, the admissibility of novel scientific expert testimony is governed by the two-pronged Frye-Mack standard. This standard requires the proponent of the evidence to establish that the underlying scientific principle or technique is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community (Frye) and that the specific evidence derived from it is foundationally reliable (Mack).
Facts:
- On March 31, 1990, respondent Timothy Tharaldson applied various insecticides, including Dursban manufactured by Dow Chemical Company, to a rental home.
- On April 2, 1990, Lawrence and Diane Goeb arrived at the home to move in and immediately noticed a strong chemical smell that caused burning sensations in their noses and throats.
- That same evening, Diane Goeb developed a headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Lawrence contacted both Tharaldson and Dow, and representatives from both companies reassured him that the insecticides were unlikely to be causing the symptoms.
- The Goebs moved into the house on April 5, 1990, and subsequently, they and their son developed a range of persistent symptoms, including confusion, memory loss, joint pain, and intestinal issues.
- On April 25, a Dow representative recommended that Lawrence be seen by a doctor for a cholinesterase test to check for organophosphate poisoning.
- Lawrence and Diane Goeb both underwent cholinesterase tests, and the results for both came back within normal ranges.
- Despite the normal test results, the Goebs moved out of the house due to their ongoing health concerns.
- On May 17, air samples taken at the house by the county health department detected chlorpyrifos (the active ingredient in Dursban), and a department memo stated that exposure was a 'reasonable explanation for the family’s illness while living in the house.'
Procedural Posture:
- Lawrence and Diane Goeb sued Timothy Tharaldson in a Minnesota district court (trial court).
- The Goebs amended their complaint to add Dow Chemical Company as a defendant.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment to Dow, finding the Goebs' claims of inadequate warnings and label instructions were preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
- Dow moved to exclude the testimony of the Goebs' expert witnesses, Drs. Sherman and Kilburn, and for summary judgment on the issue of medical causation.
- The district court granted Dow's motions, excluding the experts for lacking generally accepted and reliable methodologies, and subsequently granted summary judgment to Dow because the Goebs could not prove causation without their experts.
- The Goebs (appellants) appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's decisions.
- The Goebs (appellants) petitioned the Supreme Court of Minnesota for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the standard for admitting novel scientific evidence in Minnesota follow the Frye-Mack test, which requires general acceptance and foundational reliability, or should the court adopt the federal Daubert standard, which focuses on a trial judge's assessment of scientific validity and relevance?
Opinions:
Majority - Blatz, Chief Justice
No, Minnesota adheres to the Frye-Mack standard for the admissibility of novel scientific evidence and declines to adopt the Daubert standard. The Frye-Mack standard requires that a novel scientific technique must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community and that the particular evidence derived from it must have a foundation that is scientifically reliable. The court reasoned that Frye-Mack promotes objectivity and uniformity in rulings by deferring to the scientific community's assessment of a technique's validity, whereas Daubert would improperly require judges to act as 'amateur scientists' and resolve complex scientific disputes. While acknowledging criticisms of Frye, the court found the potential for non-uniformity under Daubert and the importance of precedent to be compelling reasons to retain its existing standard. Applying this standard, the court affirmed the exclusion of the Goebs' experts, finding their testimony lacked foundational reliability under the Mack prong because their methodologies were flawed; they failed to review all relevant medical records, relied on unconfirmed self-reported histories prepared for litigation, and, in one expert's case, used a non-peer-reviewed battery of tests.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Minnesota's status as a 'Frye-Mack' jurisdiction, creating a clear and durable split from the federal courts and the many states that have adopted the Daubert standard for expert testimony. The ruling emphasizes judicial deference to scientific consensus over a judge-centric 'gatekeeper' role, making it more difficult to introduce novel, cutting-edge, or controversial scientific theories in Minnesota courts. The opinion reinforces that even if a general scientific field is accepted, the expert's specific application and methodology in a given case must be rigorously reliable and verifiable to pass the 'Mack' prong, providing trial courts with a powerful tool to exclude what they deem to be 'junk science.'
