New Jersey Supreme Court Clarifies Gatekeeping Standards for Scientific Evidence in Mass Tort Litigation

New Jersey Supreme Court Clarifies Gatekeeping Standards for Scientific Evidence in Mass Tort Litigation

Introduction

The Supreme Court of New Jersey delivered a pivotal decision in In Re: Accutane Litigation (234 N.J. 340, 2018), updating and reinforcing the standards for admitting scientific expert testimony in civil mass tort actions. This case centered on the admissibility of scientific evidence linking Accutane, a prescription drug, to Crohn's disease under the New Jersey Rules of Evidence. The parties involved included major pharmaceutical companies appellants Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. and Roche Laboratories Inc., facing over two thousand plaintiffs alleging adverse side effects from Accutane.

Summary of the Judgment

The central issue in this appeal was whether the trial court appropriately excluded the plaintiffs' experts' testimony asserting a causal link between Accutane and Crohn's disease. Initially, a Rule 104 evidentiary hearing led the trial court to exclude the testimony based on unsound methodology. The Appellate Division reversed this exclusion, supporting the plaintiffs' position. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the trial court's exclusion. The Court emphasized the trial court's gatekeeping role, adopting aspects of the federal Daubert standard to ensure only reliable scientific evidence is presented to juries.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced key precedents that shaped the admissibility of scientific evidence in New Jersey:

  • FRYE v. UNITED STATES (1923): Established the "general acceptance" standard for scientific evidence.
  • Rubanick v. Witco Chem. Corp. (1991): Shifted towards a methodology-based approach, allowing novel scientific evidence if deemed reliable.
  • LANDRIGAN v. CELOTEX CORP. (1992): Reinforced the need for sound and well-founded methodology in toxic tort cases.
  • Kemp ex rel. Wright v. State (2002): Expanded the methodology-based standard beyond toxic torts and emphasized pretrial evidentiary hearings.
  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. (1993): Abandoned the Frye standard in federal courts, adopting the methodology-based approach and introducing key factors for reliability.
  • GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. JOINER (1997) and KUMHO TIRE CO. v. CARMICHAEL (1999): Extended the Daubert principles and affirmed the trial court's gatekeeping role under an abuse of discretion standard.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning was anchored in ensuring that only scientifically reliable and methodologically sound evidence informs jury decisions. By integrating elements of the Daubert factors, the Court sought to align New Jersey's standards with broader federal practices without fully adopting the Daubert standard.

Key points in the Court's reasoning included:

  • Gatekeeping Role: Reinforced the trial court's responsibility to act as a gatekeeper, assessing the reliability of expert methodologies independent of their conclusions.
  • Methodology over Outcome: Emphasized that the admissibility hinges on the soundness of the methodology, not on whether the outcome aligns with opposing experts.
  • Incorporation of Daubert Factors: Adopted specific Daubert factors to guide the assessment of scientific reliability, such as testability, peer review, error rates, and general acceptance.
  • Consistency with Scientific Community: Stressed that expert methodologies should reflect those accepted by the relevant scientific community.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future cases involving scientific evidence in New Jersey. By clarifying the gatekeeping standards and incorporating Daubert factors, the Court established a more structured and consistent framework for evaluating expert testimony. This ensures that juries are presented with robust and reliable scientific evidence, thereby enhancing the integrity of civil litigation involving complex scientific claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Gatekeeping Role

Gatekeeping refers to the trial court's responsibility to evaluate the admissibility of expert testimony. The court must ensure that the expert's methods are reliable and relevant before allowing the evidence to influence the jury's decision.

Methodology-Based Approach

A methodology-based approach assesses the scientific validity of the methods used by an expert to reach their conclusions. This focuses on whether the techniques and reasoning are accepted and used by the scientific community, rather than whether the findings are widely accepted.

Daubert Factors

The Daubert factors are guidelines to help courts evaluate the reliability and relevance of scientific evidence. They include:

  • Testability of the theory
  • Peer review and publication
  • Known or potential error rates
  • Standards controlling the technique's operation
  • General acceptance in the scientific community

Abuse of Discretion Standard

The abuse of discretion standard means that appellate courts should defer to the trial court's judgment unless it was arbitrary, unreasonable, or fell outside the range of permissible outcomes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of New Jersey's decision in In Re: Accutane Litigation marks a significant advancement in the adjudication of scientific evidence within the state's legal framework. By integrating aspects of the federal Daubert standard, the Court has fortified the trial courts' gatekeeping duties, ensuring that only methodologically sound and reliable scientific testimony is presented to juries. This alignment not only harmonizes New Jersey's evidentiary standards with broader judicial practices but also safeguards the integrity of civil litigation by promoting the admission of credible and scientifically robust evidence. Consequently, this ruling sets a precedent that will guide future mass tort cases, emphasizing rigorous standards in the evaluation of expert scientific testimony.

Case Details

Year: 2018
Court: SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Judge(s)

JUSTICE LaVECCHIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

Attorney(S)

Paul W. Schmidt (Covington & Burling) of the District of Columbia bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellants Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. and Roche Laboratories Inc. (Gibbons, Dughi Hewit & Domalewski, Covington & Burling, and Peabody & Arnold, attorneys; Natalie H. Mantell, Newark, Russell L. Hewit, Cranford, Paul W. Schmidt, Michael X. Imbroscio (Covington & Burling) of the District of Columbia bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Colleen M. Hennessey (Peabody & Arnold) of the Massachusetts bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel and on the briefs). Bruce D. Greenberg, Newark and David R. Buchanan argued the cause for respondents Craig Abernethy, et al. (Lite DePalma Greenberg, Seeger Weiss, Weitz & Luxenberg, and Beggs & Lane, attorneys; Bruce D. Greenberg, Newark, David R. Buchanan, Peter Samberg, and Mary Jane Bass (Beggs & Lane) of the Florida bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the briefs). Edward J. Fanning, Jr., Newark, argued the cause for amici curiae HealthCare Institute of New Jersey, New Jersey Business & Industry Association, Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey, and New Jersey Chamber of Commerce (McCarter & English, attorneys; Edward J. Fanning, Jr., and David R. Kott, Newark of counsel and on the brief, and Gary R. Tulp, on the brief). Christopher M. Placitella argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Association for Justice (Cohen, Placitella & Roth, attorneys; Christopher M. Placitella and Jared M. Placitella, of counsel and on the brief). Allan Kanner submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Allan Kanner, Esquire (Kanner & Whiteley, attorneys). Diana C. Manning submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar (Bressler, Amery & Ross, Plunkett Cooney, and DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar, attorneys; Diana C. Manning, Florham Park, Mary Massaron (Plunkett Cooney) of the Michigan and New York bars, admitted pro hac vice, Hilary A. Ballentine (Plunkett Cooney) of the Michigan bar, admitted pro hac vice, and John F. Kuppens (DRI – The Voice of the Defense Bar) of the South Carolina bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief). Susan J. Kraham submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Ironbound Community Corporation (Morningside Heights Legal Services, attorneys; Susan J. Kraham and Edward Lloyd, on the brief). Shalom D. Stone, Roseland submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Civil Justice Institute (Stone Conroy, attorneys). Melinda Martinson submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae American Medical Association, Medical Society of New Jersey, American Academy of Dermatology, Society for Investigative Dermatology, American Acne and Rosacea Society, and Dermatological Society of New Jersey (Medical Society of New Jersey and Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville, attorneys; Melinda Martinson, and Ronald S. Connelly (Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville) of the District of Columbia and Maryland bars, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief). Gavin J. Rooney submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Kenneth S. Broun, Daniel J. Capra, Joanne A. Epps, David L. Faigman, Laird Kirkpatrick, Michael M. Martin, Liesa Richter, and Stephen A. Saltzburg (Lowenstein Sandler, attorneys). Gregory S. Chernack submitted a letter brief on behalf of amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (Hollingsworth, attorneys).

Comments