Marianne Chapman v. The Procter & Gamble Distributing, LLC
766 F.3d 1296, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17535, 2014 WL 4454979 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a toxic tort case where the medical community does not generally recognize a substance as causing the alleged injury, proffered expert testimony on causation must satisfy the Daubert standard by demonstrating reliable methodologies for both general and specific causation.
Facts:
- Marianne Chapman used two to four 68-gram tubes of Fixodent denture adhesive each week for approximately eight years.
- In 1990, Proctor & Gamble (P&G) had reformulated Fixodent to include a calcium-zinc compound for improved adhesion.
- From April 2006 through January 2009, Marianne Chapman developed progressive neurological symptoms, including loss of feeling, gait ataxia, and pain in her hands and feet.
- The Chapmans alleged that her condition, myelopathy, was caused by a zinc-induced copper deficiency resulting from her heavy use of Fixodent.
- Marianne Chapman had a pre-existing medical history of neurological ailments dating back to her childhood, long before her Fixodent use began.
- A 2008 medical case report first hypothesized a potential link between zinc in denture adhesives and copper deficiency leading to neurologic disease.
- Marianne Chapman's neurological symptoms continued and in some cases worsened after she ceased using Fixodent.
Procedural Posture:
- Marianne and Daniel Chapman filed a products liability suit against P&G in Florida state court.
- P&G removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The case was transferred to a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) panel for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
- P&G filed motions to exclude the testimony of the Chapmans' seven expert witnesses under Daubert.
- The district court granted P&G's motions, excluding all of the Chapmans' proffered expert testimony on causation.
- The parties entered a joint stipulation for dismissal to create a final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal.
- The Chapmans' first appeal was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for lack of jurisdiction, finding the stipulated judgment was not adverse.
- The district court granted the Chapmans' motion to vacate the stipulated judgment.
- P&G then moved for summary judgment, arguing the Chapmans could not prove causation without expert testimony.
- The district court granted P&G's motion for summary judgment.
- The Chapmans appealed the summary judgment order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation for failing to meet the reliability standards of Daubert, and therefore properly grant summary judgment for the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Fay, J.
No. A district court does not abuse its discretion when it excludes expert testimony that fails to meet the Daubert standard for scientific reliability. Because the medical community does not generally recognize Fixodent as a cause of copper-deficiency myelopathy (CDM), this case falls into the second category under McClain v. Metabolife, requiring a full Daubert analysis for both general and specific causation. The plaintiffs’ general causation experts failed to establish reliability because their methodologies lacked a dose-response relationship, epidemiological evidence, and an analysis of the background risk of the disease. The specific causation expert's differential diagnosis was also unreliable because he failed to properly 'rule in' Fixodent as a generally accepted cause and did not adequately consider or eliminate obvious alternative causes for Marianne Chapman's specific condition, given her extensive medical history. Without admissible expert testimony to prove causation, an essential element of their claim, summary judgment for P&G was proper.
Concurring - Jordan, J.
No. The exclusion of the Chapmans' general causation experts should be affirmed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard, which is sufficient to resolve the case. The court should not have addressed, even in dictum, whether the district court could have properly prevented the Chapmans from relying on P&G's own experts. That issue was not the basis of the district court's ruling, was not argued by P&G on appeal, and should be reserved for a case that squarely presents it.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the rigorous gatekeeping function of federal courts under Daubert in toxic tort litigation. It solidifies the distinction between substances with well-established causal links to disease and those where the link is novel or unproven, placing a heavy burden on plaintiffs in the latter category. The court's detailed critique of the experts' methodologies—particularly the failure to establish dose-response, use epidemiological data, or account for background risk—provides a clear roadmap for what is required to survive a Daubert challenge in such cases. The ruling also underscores that even a commonly accepted methodology like differential diagnosis is inadmissible if it is not applied rigorously by first establishing general causation and then systematically ruling out plausible alternative causes.
