Case: 17-11063 Date Filed: 04/30/2018 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11063
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cv-00624-VEH
ERNESTEEN JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY,
A corporation,
Defendant,
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(April 30, 2018)
Case: 17-11063 Date Filed: 04/30/2018 Page: 2 of 4
Before WILSON, JORDAN, and HIGGINBOTHAM, * Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ernesteen Jones appeals the district court’s exclusion of testimony (either in
whole or in part) offered by her four experts, as well as the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. After
careful review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of oral
argument, we find no reversible error and, accordingly, affirm.
Ms. Jones offered the testimony of Dr. William Banks Hinshaw, who opined
that general causation was established between the medication Reclast and atypical
femur fractures. “General causation refers to the ‘general issue of whether a
substance has the potential to cause the plaintiff’s injury.’” Chapman v. Procter &
Gamble Distrib., LLC,
766 F.3d 1296, 1306 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Guinn v.
AstraZeneca Pharms. LP,
602 F.3d 1245, 1248 n.1 (11th Cir. 2010)).
The district court determined that Dr. Hinshaw, although qualified,
employed unreliable methodologies in reaching that conclusion and excluded his
testimony in full. See Fed. R. Evid. 702(c) (requiring admissible expert testimony
to be “the product of reliable principles and methods”); Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharms., Inc.,
509 U.S. 579, 592–93 (1993) (discussing factors in evaluating
reliability of a methodology). “[W]e must affirm [this conclusion] unless we at
*
Honorable Patrick E. Higginbotham, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
2
Case: 17-11063 Date Filed: 04/30/2018 Page: 3 of 4
least determine that the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has
applied an incorrect legal standard.” McClain v. Metabolife Intern., Inc.,
401 F.3d
1233, 1238 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). Nothing in our review of
the record, including Dr. Hinshaw’s deposition testimony, expert reports, and
supporting exhibits, leads us to believe that the district court committed a “clear
error of judgment,”
id., or that its decision was “manifestly erroneous,” Rink v.
Cheminova, Inc.,
400 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th Cir. 2005), so we affirm the district
court’s exclusion of Dr. Hinshaw’s general causation opinions.
We agree with the district court that this case falls within McClain’s second
category and that, therefore, Ms. Jones was required to offer admissible testimony
on general causation. See McClain,
401 F.3d at 1239. She conceded as much at
oral argument, stating that she “need[s] Dr. Hinshaw.” Because the district court
did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Hinshaw’s general causation opinions,
summary judgment in favor of Novartis was appropriate. See Chapman, 766 F.3d
at 1316 (noting that the plaintiff was “required to have Daubert-qualified, general
and specific-causation-expert testimony that would be admissible at trial to avoid
summary judgment”) (emphasis in original).
Having concluded that summary judgment was appropriate due to the
exclusion of Dr. Hinshaw, we need not analyze whether the district court erred in
excluding or limiting the testimony of Ms. Jones’ remaining three experts.
3
Case: 17-11063 Date Filed: 04/30/2018 Page: 4 of 4
AFFIRMED.
4
