Right here is one other visitor submit by Reed Smith‘s Kevin Hara analyzing the exclusion of a few slapdash professional witnesses, and the resultant grant of abstract judgment. Since it’s summer season, it is just becoming that he does so utilizing baseball analogies. As all the time, our visitor posters deserve 100% of the credit score (and any blame) for what they write.

**********

Baseball has all the time held a particular place in American society, and whereas it’s not revered to the identical diploma because it as soon as was, few issues are extra evocative of summer time and custom than this exceptional sport.  This visitor blogger is admittedly biased, having spent the vast majority of his youth in one among baseball’s true havens, St. Louis, Missouri, house of the workforce who wears the Birds on the Bat—the Cardinals.  Although the Redbirds are having a tough season, few sports activities franchises have loved such sustained intervals of excellence and perennial playoff rivalry, a laudable accomplishment for a midsized market workforce with out the seemingly bottomless pockets of the New York and Los Angeles groups.  Remarkably, the Cardinals haven’t completed final within the Nationwide League in additional than a century, since 1918, across the time World Struggle I ended.  At its essence, success in baseball relies on stopping your opponent from scoring runs, counting on pitching and protection, and plating runs of your personal primarily based in your offense.  Apart from this season, the Cardinals have typically excelled on the fundamentals, one of many causes for his or her long-standing success. 

Nonetheless, there’s a actually spectacular story unfolding this yr, as an outstanding once-in-a-lifetime athlete, Shohei Ohtani of the Los Angeles Angels is in uncharted territory—as a dominant beginning pitcher and practically unstoppable hitter who simply achieved the unparalleled feat of pitching a full sport shutout within the first sport of a doubleheader and hitting two gargantuan house runs within the second.  Oh(tani), and in subsequent sport he hit one other house run.  He’s, on the similar time, a drive in each run prevention and run creation, which mixes, for this Cardinals fan, Albert Pujols and Bob Gibson.

This mix brings us to immediately’s case, MacSwan v. Merck & Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103532 (W.D.N.Y. June 14, 2023).  Whereas MacSwan is probably not as chic because the season Ohtani is having fun with, it’s a best-of-both-worlds state of affairs, as a result of the defendant efficiently moved to exclude Plaintiff’s consultants on causation and moved for abstract judgment on Plaintiff’s failure to warn and breach of implied guarantee claims, successfully taking part in each stable protection and successful offense in a single fell swoop.  By the way, Fosamax litigation (a special MDL) has yielded some monumental choices, together with one of many worst circumstances of 2017 and the Supreme Courtroom’s subsequent reversal.

Plaintiff ingested Fosamax, an oral bisphosphonate used to forestall and deal with osteoporosis, and alleged it induced her to undergo osteonecrosis of the jaw (“ONJ”).  Id. at *1-2.  The court docket exercised its “gatekeeping” perform underneath Rule 702 to evaluate whether or not the methodology underlying Plaintiff’s proffered professional testimony was “scientifically legitimate” and whether or not it may “be [properly] utilized to the details in problem.”  Id. at *3 (inside citation marks and citations omitted).  Plaintiff had two consultants, Dr. Morhaim, on causation and Dr. Service provider, a supposed treater.  Like Dr. Seuss, I’ll confer with them as M1 and M2, respectively.  Neither handed Rule 702 muster.  Id.

M1 was a periodontist with experience in “oral implantology,” with a “full-time periodontal and implant observe,” and 20 years as an professional authorized marketing consultant.  Id. at *6.  He opined Plaintiff’s “opposed dental situation was BRONJ, [ONJ associated with bisphosphonate use] and was straight because of her taking the oral drugs Fosamax and Atelvia.”  Id. at *7.  M1 had learn literature “pertaining to bisphosphonates,” and labored with sufferers taking such drugs, requiring him to “perceive and clarify” the merchandise’ dangers and advantages—qualifying him to “opine typically concerning the analysis and therapy of ONJ.”  Id. at *8-10.  Along with his basic experience, he sought to “provide basic and particular causation opinions that Fosamax induced Plaintiff’s accidents.”  Id. 

Nonetheless, M1 was the medical equal of a pinch hitter.  He “by no means handled or examined Plaintiff; . . .neither reviewed all of Plaintiff’s related medical and dental information, nor cite[d] to particular scientific research or information to assist his opinion.”  Id. at *7-8. (emphasis added).  In different phrases, M1’s opinion didn’t relaxation on sound methodology, main the court docket to reject it:

[M1] testified in deposition that he had learn related scientific literature throughout his profession, together with numerous articles mailed to his house, nevertheless, he couldn’t cite any explicit article and his report references no scientific literature or scientific information. This isn’t the extent of scientific rigor that might be anticipated in his career.

Id. at *12 (inside citations, brackets and citation marks omitted).  His “casual discussions with colleagues and his analysis of ONJ in 5 sufferers taking bisphosphonates,” failed to supply a dependable foundation for basic causation as a result of his expertise was “confined” to these circumstances and entailed “diagnosing” the situation, not “ascertaining its causation.”  Id. at *12-13.  Because the court docket aptly said, his expertise with any nexus between Fosamax and ONJ was “extraordinarily restricted.”  Id. at *13.  Plaintiff took a giant swing and a miss on basic causation for her first strike.

M1’s particular causation opinion was equally suspect.  As an example, he reviewed solely “a few of Plaintiff’s medical information,” and didn’t evaluate Plaintiff’s pre-2010 dental information, which documented she was already lacking various enamel.  Id. at *13, 17.  Likewise, his conclusion that Plaintiff’s ONJ was “straight associated to her bisphosphonate use” hinged on his principle that the “results of Fosamax had been current” in Plaintiff’s physique for practically 2 a long time primarily based on its prolonged half-life—an assertion for which he “fail[ed] to quote a supply.”  Id. at *13.  M1 additional admitted not understanding whether or not Fosamax remained pharmacologically lively even when it remained buried within the bone for a chronic interval.  Id.  The court docket was unable to find out whether or not this half-life speculation was “primarily based on ample details or information.”  Id. at *14 (quotation omitted).  M1’s reliance on his selective evaluate of Plaintiff’s therapy information additional undermined the reliability of his opinion that Plaintiff even had BRONJ, as did his failure to correctly exclude potential various causes—resembling a partial denture and smoking—which he admitted may trigger dental infections.  Id.  at *17-18.  Nor did M1 adequately account for the consequences of Atelvia, one other oral bisphosphonate Plaintiff ingested, regardless of acknowledging it carried related dangers of ONJ.  Id. at *21.  He inexcusably noticed “no motive to [rule out alternative causes],” primarily based on his conclusory testimony that “if the affected person is on [Fosamax] and there’s scientific proof of BRONJ, then it’s associated and brought on by that treatment being within the affected person’s system”—a BRONJ analysis “by definition.”  Id. at *19. (inside citation marks and punctuation omitted).  That is quintessential ipse dixit testimony that falls far wanting Rule 702 requirements, and the court docket agreed, excluding all M1’s causation opinions as a result of they lacked the requisite reliability, and permitting him to supply such opinions could be “extremely prejudicial.”  Id. at *22-23.  After one other swing and a miss on causation, Plaintiff was now down two strikes.

Plaintiff tried to have her treating infectious illness specialist M2 provide an opinion primarily based on his therapy that plaintiff had osteomyelitis and that her CT scan confirmed ONJ, however like M1 (along with not being disclosed underneath Rule 26), that opinion was riddled with unreliability.  As an example, ONJ is not an infectious illness, and M2 had neither researched nor lectured concerning oral bisphosphonates, and had no coaching as a dentist or oral surgeon.  Id. at *23.  Nor did he evaluate Plaintiff’s medical or dental information or communicate to Plaintiff’s dentists.  That’s a number of “nots,” however the worst was that M2 was “unaware of when, how lengthy, and what dosage” of Fosamax Plaintiff ingested.  Id. at *24.  M2 admitted Plaintiff was identified with BRONJ previous to his examination, and he examined Plaintiff solely twice.  Id. at *25.  Due to this fact, the court docket restricted any testimony to his therapy of Plaintiff on these events, together with evaluate of CT scans and lab information and his observations of such data.  Id. at *27.  Nonetheless, recognizing treating physicians trying to supply causation opinions are topic to Rule 26, the court docket prohibited M2 from so opining—“together with any opinion in Plaintiff’s medical information that she had BRONJ” which might “impermissibly permit him to function a conduit for one more witness’s testimony.”  Id. at *28 (emphasis added).  This was Plaintiff’s third strike on causation, and in baseball phrases, she—and any professional causation testimony—was now out.

Subsequent, it was the defendant’s flip to step to the plate, transferring for abstract judgment.

Though there have been disputed details concerning the timing and period of Plaintiff’s Fosamax use, they weren’t materials to Plaintiff’s claims concerning the adequacy of the warning label, the alleged failure to warn Plaintiff’s prescribing doctor, or breach of the implied guarantee of merchantability.  Id. at *41-42.  Plaintiff asserted negligence and strict legal responsibility failure to warn claims, that are analyzed identically underneath New York legislation, underneath the usual of what an affordable producer knew or ought to have identified.  Id. at *42.  To prevail on a failure to warn declare, Plaintiff needed to show that the defendant’s warning to the prescribing doctor was insufficient and that such inadequacy induced her alleged accidents.  Id. at *43.

Plaintiff began taking Fosamax in 2001, and he argued Defendant’s failure to replace its warning label to incorporate details about the danger of ONJ till 2005 was actionable.  Id. at *45.  Placing apart that defendant couldn’t unilaterally alter its label utilizing the FDA’s Adjustments Being Effected regulation, primarily based on the court docket’s exclusion of M1’s and M2’s testimony, Plaintiff may provide “no admissible professional testimony concerning a causal affiliation between Fosamax and ONJ” previous to 2005.  Id. at *48-49.  Nor may Plaintiff fill that void by counting on professional testimony from different circumstances.  Id. at *49.  Skilled testimony was vital to handle advanced points together with the “causal relationship between Fosamax and ONJ” earlier than 2005.  Id. at *50.  Absent such proof, Plaintiff couldn’t present any warning inadequacy within the Fosamax label, negating a necessary component of her failure to warn declare.  Id.  So medical causation was absent.

Nonetheless, even when the pre-2005 Fosamax label’s warning had been insufficient, Plaintiff nonetheless “should reveal that had a special, extra correct warning been given, her doctor wouldn’t have prescribed the drug in the identical method.”  Id. (inside citation marks, punctuation and citations omitted).  Plaintiff failed to provide proof that her prescribing dentist would have modified or discontinued her Fosamax if the drug had carried a special warning.  Id. at *50-51.  Reasonably, Plaintiff admitted her treater continued to prescribe Fosamax after the 2005 ONJ warning label replace, and in 2007 her dentist knew in regards to the “affiliation between oral bisphosphonates and ONJ, however he additionally didn’t advise Plaintiff to stop taking them.”  Id. at *51.  As such, the failure of Plaintiff’s physicians to alter their prescribing habits, regardless of information of the purported dangers of ONJ meant Plaintiff couldn’t show any warning inadequacy proximately induced her alleged accidents.  Id.  Accordingly, the court docket granted abstract judgment as a result of there was no triable problem of truth “as to the adequacy of Defendant’s pre- or post-2005 warnings and whether or not Plaintiff’s therapy suppliers altered their prescribing choices if a special [warning] was supplied.”  Id. at *52.  Warning causation failed as effectively.

Plaintiff’s breach of implied guarantee declare required her to determine “the product was not minimally secure for its anticipated function—with out regard to the feasibility of different designs or the producer’s reasonableness” in advertising and marketing the product.”  Id. at *53 (inside citation marks and punctuation omitted).  Plaintiff produced no proof that Fosamax was not “minimally secure,” as M1 admitted the danger of Plaintiff growing ONJ was “very low,” and that Fosamax’s advantages exceeded its dangers.  Id. at *54.  The court docket granted abstract judgment on Plaintiff’s implied guarantee as a result of she failed to point out Fosamax was not “minimally secure.”  Id. at * 55.

Along with pitching a shut out by efficiently transferring to exclude Plaintiff’s professional testimony on basic and particular causation, Defendant efficiently went to bat and hit a game-winning abstract judgment house run.  Because the Cardinals’ long-time Corridor of Fame broadcaster Jack Buck used to declare on the finish of each triumph, “That’s a winner!”