Bowen v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., Inc.

Emily Bowen, Darren Griffin, six other minor children, and their parents (plaintiffs) brought suit against the DuPont Company (DuPont) (defendant) alleging that dermal exposure to Benlate, an agriculture product manufactured by DuPont, by the children’s mothers caused abnormal prenatal development. The children and their parents alleged that Benlate is a teratogen, an agent that causes embryonic malformations. The injuries of the children included being born with small or no eyes and delayed physical and intellectual development. DuPont argued that Emily Bowen’s injuries and conditions constituted CHARGE syndrome, which is an association of malformations generally considered to be caused by genetics. Based on the development of new testing methodologies, DuPont moved to subject Emily Bowen and Darren Griffin to genetic testing. The genetic testing revealed that Emily Bowen’s genetic profile contained a mutated gene, CHD7, that is believed to be the cause of CHARGE syndrome. The CHD7 mutation was genetic and not caused by external factors. The children and their parents wished to admit testimony from genetics expert Dr. Michael Patton, teratology and toxicology expert Dr. Charles Howard, and dermal exposure and absorption expert Dr. David MacIntosh. Dr. Patton originally believed that Emily Bowen did not have CHARGE syndrome, but after the genetic-testing results came back, he changed his opinion to be that Emily Bowen’s condition was CHARGE syndrome caused substantially by the mutated gene. Dr. Patton stated that he could not rule out Benlate as a cause because he is not an expert in teratology or toxicology. Dr. Howard continued to assert that Benlate is related to the cause of Emily Bowen’s injuries. Dr. Howard relied on Dr. Patton’s opinion because he was not an expert in genetics. Dr. MacIntosh sought to testify as an expert in dermal exposure and absorption but admitted he had only a working knowledge in the area of dermal absorption. DuPont moved to exclude the testimony of Drs. Patton, Howard, and MacIntosh and filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted DuPont’s motions.