Plourde v. Gladstone

Decision Date20 March 2002
Docket NumberNo. 1:00-CV-194.,1:00-CV-194.
CitationPlourde v. Gladstone, 190 F.Supp.2d 708 (D. Vt. 2002)
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Vermont
PartiesDaniel PLOURDE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Walter GLADSTONE, et al., Defendants.

R. Bradford Fawley, Downs, Rachlin & Martin, Brattleboro, VT, for Plaintiffs.

Richard P. Foote, Conley & Foote, Middlebury, VT, for Walter Gladstone.

Harry R. Ryan, III, Ryan, Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, VT, for Craig W. Trischman and Twin State Fertilizer.

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT K. SIMON

(Paper 116)

MURTHA, Chief Judge.

Before the Court in this toxic tort action is a motion by DefendantsWalter Gladstone, Craig W. Trischman, and Twin State Fertilizer, Inc. to exclude the expert opinion testimony of Dr. Robert K. Simon.For the reasons explained below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED with respect to Dr. Simon's proffered testimony on the issue of injury causation.

I.Background

From 1997 through 2001, Plaintiffs Daniel and Margaret Plourde lived with their two children, Andre and Daniele Plourde, on their 25-acre dairy farm in North Haverhill, New Hampshire.Walter Gladstone, a resident of Bradford, Vermont, owns 140 acres of farmland located to the immediate west and upwind of the Plourde farm.1Gladstone uses his land to grow silage (feed) corn and pumpkins.DefendantCraig Trischman is the owner of DefendantTwin State Fertilizer, Inc., a Vermont corporation that applies fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides for area farmers, including Gladstone.This dispute arises primarily from two herbicide spraying episodes during the growing seasons of 1999 and 2000.

A.Herbicide Applications

1. 1999

During four days in May and early June of 1999, Trischman applied the herbicide Command® 4EC to approximately 80 acres of Gladstone's pumpkin crop.The active ingredient in Command® 4EC is clomozone.On May 31, 1999, Trischman sprayed two herbicides — Prowl® 3.3EC and Bicep II® — on approximately 14 acres of silage corn crop.The active ingredient in Prowl® 3.3EC is pendimethalin, and the active ingredients in Bicep II® are atrazine and simazine.

Also during 1999, Gladstone hired Northeast Agriculture — a non-party in this case — to apply agricultural chemicals to his fields.On June 10, July 15 and 29, as well as August 6, 1999, Northeast Agriculture applied a variety of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides to the Gladstone fields.At least one such pesticide, Sevin®, with an active ingredient of carbaryl, has a propensity to drift.

On June 21, 1999, the Plourdes first noticed trees and shrubs on their property turning white in color.The Plourdes contacted the State of New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, and on June 24, 1999 a State inspector, Claire Nadon, investigated the Plourde farm.Nadon confirmed that vegetation was discolored and collected some vegetation and soil samples for laboratory testing.For the most part, the State's laboratory results detected no presence of any of the chemicals used on the Gladstone property in 1999.However, one area tested positive for clomozone and a trace result for a commonly-used agricultural chemical.

On the basis of her investigation, Nadon filed an administrative complaint against Twin State and Trischman.On October 27, 1999, in agreeing to a $3000 civil penalty, Twin State and Craig Trischman formally admitted to New Hampshire's allegation that "[o]n one or more of the application dates (May 29, 30, 31 and June 5, 1999) the pesticide `Command 4 EC Herbicide,' ... was applied in a manner which caused contamination to the ... Plourde Farm."Paper 121, Ex. C.

2. 2000

On May 22, 2000, Trischman applied the following herbicides to Gladstone's corn crops: Banvel®, with an active ingredient of dicamba; Dual II Magnum®, with an active ingredient of S-metolachlor/benoxacor; and Princep 4L®, with active ingredients of atrazine and simazine.Evidently, Northeast Agriculture sprayed pesticides on the Gladstone fields during the 2000 growing season.SeePaper 121, Ex. A, at ¶ 30.

On June 2, 2000, after being told by the Plourdes that trees and shrubs on their property were dying and turning yellow, Inspector Nadon returned to investigate the Plourde property.Nadon confirmed that some leaves on some of the trees were yellowed and drooping.Two vegetative samples collected on that day from two locations on the Plourde property were negative for the chemical compounds sprayed on the Gladstone property.However, a sample collected on June 20, 2000, from a windowsill of the Plourde's house directly facing the Gladstone property, reported the presence of dicamba.

Defendants' toxicological expert, Dr. Robert James, testified during his deposition as follows:

Q.Which compounds are you confident exposure occurred [during 1999 and 2000]?

A. Clomazoneand dicamba.

* * * * * *

Well, let me back up....When I'm talking about exposure, I'm thinking significant or measurable exposure.You might argue that some immeasurable or subdetectable exposure occurred.I'm tending not to discuss that because it wouldn't be significant.I'm talking about things that might be of significance and you would evaluate.

Paper 121, Ex. B, at 91-92.2

B. Daniel Plourde's Physical Condition Evaluations
1.Medical History Prior to the Sprayings

Over the course of several years prior to the spraying episodes, Daniel Plourde was diagnosed by his personal physician, Dr. Lynn Durand, with the following conditions or illnesses: (1) repeated bronchitis (respiratory infection), with associated persistent coughing and breathing difficulty; (2) sleep apnea, a condition where an individual stops breathing during sleep; (3) mild hypertension (i.e., elevated blood pressure); (4) serotonin deficiency (i.e., mild or lower-grade depression); and (5) occasional sore joints.See Paper 116, Ex. H. Daniel Plourde reported as a side effect of his bronchitis an occasional tendency to cough up mucosy sputum streaked with blood.Dr. Durand testified that one likely causal factor of Mr. Plourde's sleep apnea was his extra bodyweight, and that one symptom of sleep apnea is a feeling of fatigue.Seeid. at 116.Dr. Durand's notes from a February 1997 examination stated that "[a]ll of [Plourde's] life he has been somewhat stressed and he responds physically to stressful situations."Id. at 32.When asked to explain what he meant by that observation, Dr. Durand testified: "In other words, ... [Mr. Plourde] would tend toward physical symptoms during times of stress...."Id. at 33.Upon further questioning, Durand testified as follows:

Q.Generally, what are some of the ways an individual like Dan Plourde could respond physically to stressful situations?

A.Multiple ways ... migraine headache ... decreased weight ... increased weight ... back pain, muscle spasms, chest pain, angina, heart attacks ... rashes ... difficulty breathing ... feeling of numbness ... diminished memory ... nausea.

Id. at 35-36.

2.July 1999

On July 1, 1999, Mr. Plourde visited Dr. Durand complaining of coughing accompanied by blood, shortness of breath upon exertion, and swelling and redness on the side of his face that was facing the Gladstone property when he was working on his farm.Plourde alleged that the symptoms were due to the clomozone sprayed on the Gladstone property.Dr. Durand later testified that Mr. Plourde's face did not appear red or swollen, and explained he could not, "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty" conclude that the symptoms Mr. Plourde reported having was caused by exposure to "anything, including herbicide."Id. at 152-53.

3.June 2000

On June 4, 2000, Mr. Plourde, after completing his morning farm chores, checked into the emergency room at a local hospital.A hospital report prepared that day stated, in relevant part:

Patient noted left facial numbness with some question of drool on the left side of his mouth at approximately 2:00 a.m. this morning.Otherwise no complaints or symptoms.No chest pain.No shortness of breath, no nausea or vomiting.No headache, no back pain.No change in eczema.He completed his usual farm chores.He had no trouble with exertion, but appears fatigued.He went into the house and rested and reported to the ER shortly thereafter....

Paper 115, Ex. 26.

a.Dr. Charles Sawyer

After Plourde was admitted to the emergency room, he was first examined by Dr. Charles Sawyer.During his October 5, 2001 deposition, Sawyer testified as follows:

2.[Plourde] came in complaining of tingling in the left side of his mouth, and he listed the reason that he was having this was that he was exposed to an herbicide.

* * * * * *

He told me that he had a cow that was ill, also, that was unable to stand, and that the vet was taking care of the cow, and that I should call the vet to see what's wrong with the cow because maybe that's what's wrong with him.

* * * * * *

Q.What did your exam show?

A.If you read from the note, he was awake, alert, did not appear to be in any acute distress, his ears, nose, and throat exam are essentially normal, his lungs are clear, his heart and abdomen are normal, his back was normal, his extremities were normal, his neurologic exam looked to be grossly normal, and I didn't detect any facial weakness or asymmetry in his mouth.

Q.And he wasn't drooling?

A.He wasn't drooling, that I could tell.

Paper 115, Ex. 28, at 11-12, 14.

Dr. Sawyer also examined Mr. Plourde's body and observed cracks in the skin on Plourde's forearms and back.When questioned about this observation, Sawyer explained:

Q.Does that condition bring anything to mind for you, does that condition bring anything to mind for you that might explain the dermatitis?

A.There's a whole host of things, including chemical exposure, eczema, psoriasis, medication allergy.

Q.In this case there's just no way to know?

A.It's a long laundry list.

Q.You don't have an opinion at this time, do you?

A.Uh, no.

Id. at 75.

However, a blood test performed at approximately 10:40...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
17 cases
  • Blanchard v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • Agosto 05, 2011
    ...Plourde v. Gladstone, 190 F. Supp. 2d 708, 721 (D. Vt. 2002). "Thus, expert testimony on toxic injuries may be admissible where dosage or exposure levels have been roughly established through reliable circumstantial evidence." Id. But, while "it is not always necessary for a plaintiff to quantify exposure levels precisely," courts generally preclude experts from testifying "as to specific causation without having any measurements of a plaintiff's exposure to the allegedlyit is impossible "to quantify with hard proof—such as the presence of the alleged toxic substance in the plaintiff's blood or tissue—the precise amount of the toxic substance to which an individual plaintiff was exposed." Plourde v. Gladstone, 190 F. Supp. 2d 708, 721 (D. Vt. 2002). "Thus, expert testimony on toxic injuries may be admissible where dosage or exposure levels have been roughly established through reliable circumstantial evidence." Id. But, while "it is notSupp. 2d at 722. Differential diagnosis is a scientific analysis entailing "the weighing of relevant evidence, listing all likely causes of the patient's observed symptoms or injury, then eliminating all but one cause." Plourde, 190 F. Supp. 2d at 722; see Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 262 (4th Cir. 1999) (defining differential diagnosis as "standard scientific technique of identifying the cause of a medical problem by eliminating the likely causes until...
  • K.E. v. Glaxosmithkline LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • Fevereiro 01, 2017
    ...on a differential diagnosis where the proffered expert possesses onlyweak circumstantial evidence that some exposure occurred and makes no effort to scientifically evaluate or roughly estimate the degree of exposure or dosage." Plourde, 190 F. Supp. 2d at 722. A differential diagnosis therefore must offer a "reliable basis" for concluding that the allegedly tortious product is "capable of causing" the injury in question, or—in other words—a "reliable ground upon which [the product]especially when the pot overheated." Id. at 1045. Thus, expert testimony on toxic injuries may be admissible where dosage or exposure levels have been roughly established through reliable circumstantial evidence. See also Plourde, 190 F. Supp. 2d at 723 (excluding expert testimony on causation because "in contrast to the medical doctor in McCullock, there is no evidence [that expert doctor] based his opinion on an objective showing that Mr. Plourde was in an "exposureinjury at issue, or some other case-specific circumstance, a differential diagnosis is sufficient to support an expert's opinion in support of both general and specific causation." Ruggiero, 424 F.3d at 254; Plourde v. Gladstone, 190 F. Supp. 2d 708, 722 n.7 (D. Vt. 2002) ("courts have looked favorably on causation testimony that is primarily based on differential diagnosis"); see also Perkins, 299 F. Supp. 2d at 57 ("Differential diagnosis is a reliable basis to prove general...
  • Blanchard v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Vermont
    • Junho 28, 2010
    ...toxic substance to which an individual plaintiff was exposed." Plourde v. Gladstone, 190 F.Supp.2d 708, 722 (D. Vt. 2002). Thus, it generally suffices for exposure levels to be "roughly established through reliable circumstantial evidence." Id. however, the circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to support an inference that plaintiff was exposed to benzene in any amount. The testimony from plaintiff and his childhood friends reasonably supports the inferences that there were chemicals...
  • Perkins v. Origin Medsystems, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • Janeiro 14, 2004
    ...Shield Claimants Trust, 156 F.3d 248, 252-53 (1st Cir.1998); Glaser v. Thompson Med. Co., 32 F.3d 969, 978 (6th Cir.1994). Differential diagnosis is a reliable basis to prove general causation in this circuit. Plourde v. Gladstone, 190 F.Supp.2d 708, 722 (D.Vt.2002) (citing McCullock, 61 F.3d at 1044) (explaining that "lack of textual authority" on the issue of general causation "go[es] to the weight, not the admissibility" of an expert opinion, when the expert has...
  • Get Started for Free
10 books & journal articles
  • Presenting Your Expert at Trial and Arbitration
    • United States
    • Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2021 James Publishing David J. Galluzzo
    • Agosto 04, 2021
  • Presenting Your Expert at Trial and Arbitration
    • United States
    • Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses James Publishing David J. Galluzzo
    • Mayo 04, 2022
    ...ARBITRATION §345 QUALIFYING AND ATTACKING EXPERT WITNESSES 3-54 vehicle to bring before the jury incompetent evidence. See People v. Dean , 174 Cal. App. 4th 186, 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 478 (2009). The court in Plourde v. Gladstone , 190 F. Supp. 2d 708 (D. Vt. 2002) similarly noted that an expert who simply repeats inadmissible hearsay evidence without applying any expertise enables a party to circumvent the rules prohibiting hearsay. The court noted that to permit an expertthe out-of-court declaration be of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject. If it is not, it cannot be used for any purpose. See Plourde v. Gladstone, 190 F. Supp. 2d 708,718-721 (D. Vt. 2002) where the court commented that Rule 703 does not authorize admitting hearsay on the pretense that it is the basis for expert opinion when, in fact, the expert adds nothing to the out-of-court statements other than transmitting...
  • Presenting Your Expert at Trial and Arbitration
    • United States
    • Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2017 James Publishing David J. Galluzzo
    • Agosto 04, 2017
    ...upon which his or her opinion is based may not be used as a vehicle to bring before the jury incompetent evidence. See People v. Dean , 174 Cal. App. 4th 186, 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 478 (2009). The court in Plourde v. Gladstone , 190 F. Supp. 2d 708 (D. Vt. 2002) similarly noted that an expert who simply repeats inadmissible hearsay evidence without applying any expertise enables a party to circumvent the rules prohibiting hearsay. The court noted that to permit an expertthe out-of-court declaration be of a type reasonably relied on by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject. If it is not, it cannot be used for any purpose. See Plourde v. Gladstone, 190 F. Supp. 2d 708,718-721 (D. Vt. 2002) where the court commented that Rule 703 does not authorize admitting hearsay on the pretense that it is the basis for expert opinion when, in fact, the expert adds nothing to the out-of-court statements other than transmitting...
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Qualifying & Attacking Expert Witnesses - 2016 James Publishing David J. Galluzzo, Robert Clifford
    • Agosto 04, 2016
    ...1058 (D. Or. 2004), §551.1.10 Plasse v. Tyco Electronics, 448 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D. Mass. 2006), §402.1 Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles , 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (S.D. Cal. 1999), §402.1 Plourde v. Gladstone , 190 F. Supp. 2d 708 (D. Vt. 2002), §345.4 Polec v. Northwest Airlines (In re Air Crash Disaster), 86 F. 3d 498, 538-539 (6th Cir. 1996), §§332.8, 332.8.1 Pollock v. Panjabi, 781 A.2d 518 (Conn. 2000), §170 Pomella v. Regency Coach Lines,...
  • Get Started for Free