AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The decedent, a farmer and rancher, was exposed to benzene through gasoline and Liquid Wrench over a 24-year period, from 1947 to 1971. In November 2004, he was diagnosed with Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS), also known as acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), and died on February 5, 2005. The plaintiff, his widow, sued the defendants, alleging that the benzene in the products they supplied or manufactured caused the decedent's MDS and subsequent death (paras 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the decedent's exposure to benzene from the defendants' products caused his MDS and death. Designated Dr. Mark Nicas, an industrial hygienist, to estimate the decedent's benzene exposure, and Dr. Frank Gardner, a hematologist, to testify on the causation of the decedent's form of MDS by benzene exposure (paras 3-4).
• Defendants: Filed motions to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff's experts, Dr. Nicas and Dr. Gardner, on the grounds that their methodologies were flawed and their opinions inadmissible under Rule 11-702 NMRA. Contended that without the expert testimony, the plaintiff could not establish causation, warranting summary judgment in their favor (paras 4-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in striking the testimony of Dr. Nicas and Dr. Gardner under Daubert/Alberico, thereby entitling defendants to summary judgment due to lack of evidence on causation (para 6).
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding expert witness fees and costs to the defendants (para 6).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants was affirmed. The court also affirmed the award of expert witness fees and costs to the defendants (paras 1, 40).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, held that:
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of Dr. Nicas and Dr. Gardner. The methodologies used by both experts to establish causation were found to be scientifically invalid and unreliable. Specifically, Dr. Nicas' calculation of benzene exposure was based on flawed assumptions that would have resulted in acute central nervous system toxicity from other gasoline constituents, not just benzene. Dr. Gardner's testimony was deemed irrelevant without reliable evidence of benzene exposure levels from Dr. Nicas (paras 16-30).
  The award of expert witness fees and costs was within the discretion of the district court and was not an abuse of discretion. The testimony of the defendants' experts was material to the award of summary judgment, and the costs associated with their testimony were deemed reasonably necessary for the litigation (paras 31-39).