General Electric Co. v. Joiner

Citation522 U.S. 136,139 L.Ed.2d 508,118 S.Ct. 512
Decision Date15 December 1997
Docket Number96188
PartiesGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Petitioners, v. Robert K. JOINER, et ux
CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Syllabus*

After he was diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer, respondent Joiner sued in Georgia state court, alleging, inter alia, that his disease was "promoted'' by his workplace exposure to chemical "PCBs'' and derivative "furans'' and "dioxins'' that were manufactured by, or present in materials manufactured by, petitioners. Petitioners removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment. Joiner responded with the depositions of expert witnesses, who testified that PCBs, furans, and dioxins can promote cancer, and opined that Joiner' exposure to those chemicals was likely responsible for his cancer. The District Court ruled that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Joiner had been exposed to PCBs, but granted summary judgment for petitioners because (1) there was no genuine issue as to whether he had been exposed to furans and dioxins, and (2) his experts' testimony had failed to show that there was a link between exposure to PCBs and small-cell lung cancer and was therefore inadmissible because it did not rise above "subjective belief or unsupported speculation.'' In reversing, the Eleventh Circuit applied "a particularly stringent standard of review'' to hold that the District Court had erred in excluding the expert testimony.

Held:

1.Abuse of discretion-the standard ordinarily applicable to review of evidentiary rulings-is the proper standard by which to review a district court's decision to admit or exclude expert scientific evidence. Contrary to the Eleventh Circuit's suggestion, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469, did not somehow alter this general rule in the context of a district court's decision to exclude scientific evidence. Daubert did not address the appellate review standard for evidentiary rulings at all, but did indicate that, while the Federal Rules of Evidence allow district courts to admit a somewhat broader range of scientific testimony than did pre-existing law, they leave in place the trial judge's "gatekeeper'' role of screening such evidence to ensure that it is not only relevant, but reliable. Id., at 589, 113 S.Ct., at 2794-2795. A court of appeals applying "abuse of discretion'' review to such rulings may not categorically distinguish between rulings allowing expert testimony and rulings which disallow it. Compare Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 172, 109 S.Ct. 439, 451, 102 L.Ed.2d 445, with United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 54, 105 S.Ct. 465, 470, 83 L.Ed.2d 450. This Court rejects Joiner's argument that because the granting of summary judgment in this case was "outcome determinative,'' it should have been subjected to a more searching standard of review. On a summary judgment motion, disputed issues of fact are resolved against the moving party-here, petitioners. But the question of admissibility of expert testimony is not such an issue of fact, and is reviewable under the abuse of discretion standard. In applying an overly "stringent'' standard, the Eleventh Circuit failed to give the trial court the deference that is the hallmark of abuse of discretion review. P. ___.

2.A proper application of the correct standard of review indicates that the District Court did not err in excluding the expert testimony at issue. The animal studies cited by respondent's experts were so dissimilar to the facts presented here-i.e., the studies involved infant mice that developed alveologenic adenomas after highly concentrated, massive doses of PCBs were injected directly into their peritoneums or stomachs, whereas Joiner was an adult human whose small-cell carcinomas allegedly resulted from exposure on a much smaller scale-that it was not an abuse of discretion for the District Court to have rejected the experts' reliance on those studies. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in concluding that the four epidemiological studies on which Joiner relied were not a sufficient basis for the experts' opinions, since the authors of two of those studies ultimately were unwilling to suggest a link between increases in lung cancer and PCB exposure among the workers they examined, the third study involved exposure to a particular type of mineral oil not necessarily relevant here, and the fourth involved exposure to numerous potential carcinogens in addition to PCBs. Nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert. Pp. ___-___.

3.These conclusions, however, do not dispose of the entire case. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's conclusion that Joiner had not been exposed to furans and dioxins. Because petitioners did not challenge that determination in their certiorari petition, the question whether exposure to furans and dioxins contributed to Joiner's cancer is still open. P. ___.

78 F.3d 524, reversed and remanded.

REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, AND BREYER JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Steven R. Kuney, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, DC, for United States as amicus curiae.

Michael H. Gottesman, for respondents.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari in this case to determine what standard an appellate court should apply in reviewing a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). We hold that abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard. We apply this standard and conclude that the District Court in this case did not abuse its discretion when it excluded certain proffered expert testimony.

I

Respondent Robert Joiner began work as an electrician in the Water & Light Department of Thomasville, Georgia (City) in 1973. This job required him to work with and around the City's electrical transformers, which used a mineral-based dielectric fluid as a coolant. Joiner often had to stick his hands and arms into the fluid to make repairs. The fluid would sometimes splash onto him, occasionally getting into his eyes and mouth. In 1983 the City discovered that the fluid in some of the transformers was contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs are widely considered to be hazardous to human health. Congress, with limited exceptions, banned the production and sale of PCBs in 1978. See 90 Stat.2020, 15 U.S.C. §2605(e)(2)(A).

Joiner was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer in 1991. He1 sued petitioners in Georgia state court the following year. Petitioner Monsanto manufactured PCBs from 1935 to 1977; petitioners General Electric and Westinghouse Electric manufactured transformers and dielectric fluid. In his complaint Joiner linked his development of cancer to his exposure to PCBs and their derivatives, polychlorinated dibenzofurans (furans) and polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (dioxins). Joiner had been a smoker for approximately eight years, his parents had both been smokers, and there was a history of lung cancer in his family. He was thus perhaps already at a heightened risk of developing lung cancer eventually. The suit alleged that his exposure to PCBs "promoted'' his cancer; had it not been for his exposure to these substances, his cancer would not have developed for many years, if at all.

Petitioners removed the case to federal court. Once there, they moved for summary judgment. They contended that (1) there was no evidence that Joiner suffered significant exposure to PCBs, furans, or dioxins, and (2) there was no admissible scientific evidence that PCBs promoted Joiner's cancer. Joiner responded that there were numerous disputed factual issues that required resolution by a jury. He relied largely on the testimony of expert witnesses. In depositions, his experts had testified that PCBs alone can promote cancer and that furans and dioxins can also promote cancer. They opined that since Joiner had been exposed to PCBs, furans, and dioxins, such exposure was likely responsible for Joiner's cancer.

The District Court ruled that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Joiner had been exposed to PCBs. But it nevertheless granted summary judgment for petitioners because (1) there was no genuine issue as to whether Joiner had been exposed to furans and dioxins, and (2) the testimony of Joiner's experts had failed to show that there was a link between exposure to PCBs and small cell lung cancer. The court believed that the testimony of respondent's experts to the contrary did not rise above "subjective belief or unsupported speculation.'' 864 F.Supp. 1310, 1326 (N.D.Ga.1994). Their testimony was therefore inadmissible.

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. 78 F.3d 524 (1996). It held that " [b]ecause the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert testimony display a preference for admissibility, we apply a particularly stringent standard of review to the trial judge's exclusion of expert testimony.'' Id. at 529. Applying that standard, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court had erred in excluding the testimony of Joiner's expert witnesses. The District Court had made two fundamental errors. First, it excluded the experts' testimony because it "drew different conclusions from the research than did each of the experts.'' The Court of Appeals opined that a district court should limit its role to determining the "legal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4631 cases
  • Stillwagon v. City of Del., Case No. 2:14–cv–807
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • August 15, 2017
    ...under Rule 702." Palatka v. Savage Arms, Inc. , 535 Fed.Appx. 448, 453 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner , 522 U.S. 136, 142, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) ). And as the gatekeeper, a trial judge has discretion to determine the admissibility of a proposed expert's te......
  • Arneauld v. Pentair, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 26, 2012
    ...Quintanilla, 2007 WL 1309539, at * 3 (quotations, alterations and citation omitted); see General Electric Co. v Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 142, 118 S. Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed. 2d 508 (1997); also Ruggiero v. Warner-Lambert, 424 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 2005) ("[W]hen an expert opinion is based on data, ......
  • Yarchak v. Trek Bicycle Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • June 25, 2002
    ...admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert." General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 145-146, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997). Accordingly, when making a preliminary determination with respect to the admissibility of expert tes......
  • Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. City of S. Portland
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • December 29, 2017
    ...of the expert.' " Knowlton v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co. , 882 F.Supp.2d 129, 131 (D. Me. 2012) (quoting Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner , 522 U.S. 136, 146, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) ).There is no explanation in this statement of how Mr. North's experience leads him to the conclusion, or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 firm's commentaries
  • Recent Developments in Environmental Law in Indiana
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 12, 2002
    ...U.S. Supreme Court has produced several important follow-up rulings elaborating upon Daubert including: General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512 (1997): Holds that federal appellate courts are to apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a trial judge's decision ......
  • Assessing Expert Methodology: Daubert: in the Third Circuit and the District of New Jersey
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 19, 2004
    ...Rules of Evidence is Sound; It Should Not Be Amended, 138 F.R.D. 631 (1991)). Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146-147 (1997). Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Fed. R. Evid. 702. 509 U.S. 592 n. 10. 199 F.3d 158, 159 (3rd Cit. 2000......
  • New Peer Reviewed Edition Of Reference Manual On Scientific Evidence For Judges Released
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 20, 2011
    ...Federal Judicial Center published a second edition in 2000 in the wake of the Supreme Court's decisions in General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). The disputed issue in all three cases was causation. Thus, each edition of th......
  • Zantac MDL Decision Reinforces Principle That Lack Of General Acceptance Of An Expert's Conclusions Raises A Red Flag
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 16, 2023
    ...on methodology, not conclusions. The Zantac decision reaffirms the principle first articulated in General Electric Company v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997), that 'conclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another.' The Advisory Committee Notes to the 2000 Amendment t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
117 books & journal articles
  • Deposing & examining the labor market expert
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Deposing & Examining Employment Witnesses
    • March 31, 2022
    ...burden (abuse of discretion standard; trial court’s determination upheld “unless manifestly erroneous”). In General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), the Supreme Court held that a trial court’ decision whether to admit or exclude expert scientif‌ic testimony should be reviewed under ......
  • Part 6: Form SSA-4734-U8 (1-89)
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Advocate's Handbook Appendix
    • May 4, 2020
    ...by demonstrating that those extrapolations are the product of reliable “principles and methods.” General Electric Corp. v. Joiner , 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). 30 If you conclude my request is either overbroad or burdensome, please advise me in advance of the hearing as to which particular re......
  • Attacking Vocational Expert Testimony
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Social Security Disability Collection - James' Best Materials. Volume 2
    • May 5, 2015
    ...by demonstrating that those extrapolations are the product of reliable “principles and methods.” General Electric Corp. v. Joiner , 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). 20 I do not stipulate to the expertise of the scheduled vocational expert to offer opinions in this case. Vocational opinions can onl......
  • Selecting Your Expert
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2018 Contents
    • August 4, 2018
    ...take his testimony on faith. COMMENT Justice Breyer in his concurring opinion in General Elec. Co. v. Joiner , 522 U.S.136, L. Ed 2d 508, 118 S. Ct. 512 (1997), observed that cases presenting significant science related issues have increased. The gatekeeper function sometimes requires the t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 provisions

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT