DeLuca by DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Cindy DeLuca, her husband, and her daughter Amy DeLuca (plaintiffs) brought suit against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Corporation (Merrell Dow) (defendant), the manufacturer of Bendectin, alleging that Cindy DeLuca’s use of Bendectin for morning sickness while she was pregnant with Amy DeLuca caused Amy DeLuca to be born with severe birth defects. The DeLucas sought to introduce testimony from Dr. Done, an expert in pharmacology. Dr. Done used the same epidemiological data as other experts but analyzed it without emphasis on statistical significance. Instead, Dr. Done predicated his analysis on a methodology that reports relative risks and confidence intervals. Dr. Done’s analysis indicated that Bendectin caused birth defects. Merrell Dow filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the only evidence the DeLucas presented on causation was inadmissible because epidemiological studies were the only reasonable basis for expert opinion and all relevant ones have determined there is no statistically significant link between Bendectin and the type of birth defects suffered by Amy DeLuca. The district court held that Dr. Done’s testimony was inadmissible at trial because it did not meet the requirement of Federal Rule of Evidence 703 that testimony must be based on data of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the pertinent fields. Dr. Done’s testimony was the only evidence of causation offered by the DeLucas, so the district court entered summary judgment for Merrel Dow. The DeLucas appealed.