In re the Complaint of Ingram Barge Co.

Citations: 187 F.R.D. 262; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14698Docket: Civ.A.No. 97-226-A-1

Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana; March 22, 1999; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In response to Ingram Barge Company and Ingram Ohio Barge Company’s motion to exclude Dr. Nachman Brautbar as an expert witness, the court emphasized the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals regarding the admissibility of expert testimony. The court must ensure that an expert is qualified based on their knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, according to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Expert testimony should be scientific, grounded in the scientific method, and not based on subjective belief or speculation. The court outlined a five-factor test to assess the reliability of the expert’s methodology, which includes: 1) testability of the theory; 2) peer review and publication status; 3) known/error rates; 4) maintenance of standards and controls; and 5) general acceptance in the scientific community. The district court performs preliminary factfinding to validate the expert's reasoning and methodology, applicable not only to hard sciences but also to medical causation cases. The burden lies with the party seeking to admit the expert testimony to demonstrate its reliability through objective validation rather than mere assertions of scientific methodology.

The proponent must establish the reliability of the expert's testimony by a preponderance of evidence, rather than its correctness. Dr. Nachman Brautbar has been identified as an expert in toxicology and internal medicine by the Claimants’ Steering Committee (CSC). His qualifications include board certification in internal medicine, extensive practice in toxicology, and significant contributions to teaching and writing in this field. 

Dr. Brautbar's expert report outlines his qualifications and presents the factual basis for his conclusions, which include: 

1. Patients exposed to toxic releases need evaluation for neurotoxic, pulmonary, ENT, and dermatological damages, along with consideration of cancer risks due to exposure to carcinogenic agents.
2. The risk of cancer among exposed patients is significantly higher compared to the non-exposed population, necessitating biannual medical monitoring, including various tests and screenings.
3. Extensive peer-reviewed literature supports the carcinogenic and toxic effects of benzene and toluene on various body systems.

In response to a motion in limine from Ingram, the CSC clarified that Dr. Brautbar's testimony focuses on the need for medical monitoring but does not identify specific individuals at risk. His analysis is based on incident reports and relevant scientific literature.

Dr. Brautbar concluded that hazardous chemicals were present in Baton Rouge in March 1997, necessitating medical testing for those exposed. However, his opinions do not meet the criteria established by Daubert, primarily because he does not identify specific individuals or populations exposed to harmful levels of chemicals. His expert opinions lack scientifically valid reasoning or methodology and he could not cite any studies or peer-reviewed literature supporting his recommendations for testing and monitoring. Although he suggested biannual testing (including blood and urine analysis), there is no evidence that any claimants underwent such testing or that their risk of cancer is significantly increased compared to non-exposed individuals. Dr. Brautbar's references to 12 articles do not substantiate his claims or link to his testing recommendations. His failure to articulate a valid methodology implies a lack of scientific basis for his conclusions. Ultimately, his testimony is unlikely to assist the trier of fact, reducing to a vague assertion of potential exposure without substantial evidence, categorized as "unscientific speculation."

Dr. Nachman Brautbar is deemed qualified to testify as an expert in toxicology and internal medicine regarding the general symptoms and harmful effects of exposure to benzene, toluene, styrene, and xylene. However, his testimony is restricted; he cannot claim that exposure requires evaluations for neurotoxic, pulmonary, dermatological, or other damages, nor can he assert that such exposure significantly increases cancer risk or necessitates biannual specialist examinations. The court finds that his opinions lack a scientifically valid methodology and are therefore unreliable. Consequently, the motion in limine by Ingram Barge Company to exclude Dr. Brautbar is partially granted, allowing him to present his qualifications and general effects of exposure but excluding other specific claims.

Dr. Brautbar's expert report did not adequately connect air monitoring data to individual claimants, failing to demonstrate that his theories are generally accepted in the scientific community. His reference to studies on chronic exposure among industrial workers in different contexts is not applicable to the current case, and no explanation was provided in his report to support how those studies relate to the Ingram claimants. The CSC's defense focused primarily on Dr. Brautbar's qualifications rather than addressing the lack of scientific validity in his opinions.