Guinn v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• granting summary judgment in the absence of expert testimony as to specific causation
• “[U]sing temporal proximity to establish causation ‘is not an exercise in scientific logic but in the fallacy of post-hoc propter-hoc reasoning, which is unacceptable in science as in law.’” (quoting Black v. Food Lion, Inc., 171 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 1999))
• similarly concluding that expert “testimony was unreliable because her conclusions were not logically supported by the facts of this case”
• “[A]n expert must provide some explanation of why other potential causes were not the sole cause.” (citing Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 265 (4th Cir. 1999))
• “Although the differential diagnosis technique is well accepted, a finding that all possible causes are causes does not appear to have gained general acceptance in the medical and scientific communities.”
• “The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that [the expert’s] differential diagnosis was unreliable under Daubert because she failed to adequately consider possible alternative causes of [Plaintiff’s medical conditions].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).