522 U.S. 136, 142–43 (1997)
Robert Joiner began work as an electrician in the Water & Light Department of Thomasville, Georgia, in 1973.1 This job required him to work with and around the City’s electrical transformers, which used a mineral-oil-based dielectric fluid as a coolant.2 Joiner often had to stick his hands and arms into the fluid to make repairs.3 The fluid would sometimes splash onto him, occasionally getting into his eyes and mouth.4 In 1983 the City discovered that the fluid in some of the transformers was contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls.5
Joiner was diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer in 1991.6 He sued petitioners in Georgia state court the following year.7 Petitioner Monsanto manufactured PCB’s from 1935 to 1977.8 Petitioners General Electric and Westinghouse Electric manufactured transformers and dielectric fluid.9 In his complaint Joiner linked his development of cancer to his exposure to PCB’s and their derivatives, polychlorinated dibenzofurans and polychlorinated dibenzodioxins.10 Joiner had been a smoker for approximately eight years.11 His parents had both been smokers, and there was a history of lung cancer in his family.12
Petitioners removed the case to federal court.13 Once there, they moved for summary judgment.14 Joiner responded that there were numerous disputed factual issues that required resolution by a jury.15 He relied largely on the testimony of expert witnesses.16 In depositions, his experts had testified that PCB’s alone can promote cancer and that furans and dioxins can also promote cancer.17 They opined that since Joiner had been exposed to PCB’s, furans, and dioxins, such exposure was likely responsible for Joiner’s cancer.18
The District Court ruled that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Joiner had been exposed to PCB’s.19 But it nevertheless granted summary judgment for petitioners because there was no genuine issue as to whether Joiner had been exposed to furans and dioxins.20 The testimony of Joiner’s experts had failed to show that there was a link between exposure to PCB’s and small-cell lung cancer.21 The court believed that the testimony of respondent’s experts to the contrary did not rise above subjective belief or unsupported speculation.22
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed.23 It held that because the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert testimony display a preference for admissibility, it applied a particularly stringent standard of review to the trial judge’s exclusion of expert testimony.24 The Supreme Court granted petitioners’ petition for a writ of certiorari.25
Whether abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard of review for a district court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony under Daubert?26
Abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review of a district court’s evidentiary rulings.27 This standard applies to decisions admitting or excluding evidence and was not altered by Daubert for scientific testimony.28 The trial judge serves as gatekeeper to ensure relevance and reliability, yet appellate courts must apply deferential review without imposing a more stringent standard on exclusions.29
Yes. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit erred when it applied a particularly stringent standard of review to the trial judge’s exclusion of expert testimony.30 Under the established facts, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert testimony display a preference for admissibility.31 It therefore applied a particularly stringent standard of review to the trial judge’s exclusion of expert testimony. The Supreme Court determined that this approach was incorrect because abuse of discretion remains the governing standard. The Court of Appeals failed to give the trial court the deference that is the hallmark of abuse-of-discretion review.
The District Court had excluded the testimony after concluding it did not rise above subjective belief or unsupported speculation.32 The appellate court should have reviewed that decision under the deferential standard.33
The abuse of discretion standard therefore governs review of the District Court’s decision to exclude the expert testimony in this case involving claims that PCB exposure promoted small-cell lung cancer.34
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens joined Parts I and II of the opinion agreeing that abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review.35 He declined to join Part III because the parties had not adequately briefed whether the District Court properly held the testimony inadmissible.36 He would have remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for application of the proper standard.37
He observed that the record was incomplete with only one of thirteen studies in the record and only six discussed in the District Court opinion.38 A fair appraisal of the methodology or conclusions of Joiner’s experts could not be made on the basis of such an incomplete record.39
Justice Breyer joined the Court’s opinion and specially emphasized the gatekeeper function in cases presenting significant science-related issues.40 He noted that judges must exercise special care when determining whether expert testimony is reliable and will assist the trier of fact.41 This is particularly true in toxic tort litigation where scientific methodology must be evaluated to ensure reliable evidence reaches the jury.42
Judges are not scientists and lack the training that can facilitate such determinations.43 He observed that techniques such as pretrial hearings and appointment of experts can assist judges in making the sophisticated determinations required when scientific evidence is offered to prove individual causation.44 Judges have increasingly found ways in the Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedure to help overcome the difficulty of making determinations about complicated scientific evidence.45
Whether the District Court abused its discretion when it excluded the testimony of Joiner’s expert witnesses?46
A district court does not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony when there is too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.47 The court may reject reliance on animal studies that are dissimilar to the facts of the case and on epidemiological studies whose authors do not support the experts’ conclusions on causation.48
No. The District Court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the testimony of Joiner’s expert witnesses.49 Under the established facts, Joiner’s experts relied on animal studies involving infant mice that developed cancer after massive doses of PCB’s injected directly into their peritoneums or stomachs.50 Joiner was an adult human whose alleged exposure occurred through splashing fluid at far lower concentrations.51 The cancer types also differed with the mice developing alveologenic adenomas and Joiner developing small-cell carcinomas.52 The epidemiological studies either failed to conclude a link between PCB exposure and lung cancer or involved different substances and additional carcinogens.53
The District Court correctly identified these dissimilarities.54 The resulting analytical gap justified exclusion of the testimony.55
The District Court therefore acted within its discretion in excluding the expert testimony that failed to connect the cited studies sufficiently to Joiner’s circumstances of exposure and cancer development.56
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens would not have reached the question whether the District Court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony.57 He stated that a proper answer requires a study of the record that can be performed more efficiently by the Court of Appeals.58 He would remand the case to that court for application of the abuse-of-discretion standard.59
He noted that the Court has not adequately explained why its holding is consistent with Federal Rule of Evidence 702 as interpreted in Daubert.60
Justice Breyer underscored that the gatekeeping requirement helps assure that the powerful engine of tort liability points toward the right substances and does not destroy the wrong ones.61 He observed that techniques such as pretrial hearings and appointment of experts can assist judges in making the sophisticated determinations required when scientific evidence is offered to prove individual causation. Judges have increasingly found ways in the Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedure to help overcome the difficulty of making determinations about complicated scientific evidence.