atLaw
Michael R. Perry
617 226-3464
Shareholder
Areas of Concentration
Business Litigation
Office
In a recent decision, the Supreme Judicial Court significantly enhanced the ability of both plaintiffs and defendants to challenge the admissibility of expert testimony based on “junk science.” In Theresa Canavan’s Case, the plaintiff claimed that she sustained severe and permanent injuries as a result of being exposed to multiple chemicals while working as an operating room nurse at the Brigham & Women’s Hospital. Ms. Canavan subsequently sought treatment from a Dr. LaCava, who diagnosed her with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS). Dr. LaCava also prescribed a course of treatment that included intravenous infusion of vitamins and sauna therapy. In the context of a subsequent workers’ compensation action, Dr. LaCava opined that Ms. Canavan’s disability was the result of chemical poisoning caused by her work environment, and that MCS had rendered her totally disabled. Based in large part on the testimony of Dr. LaCava, the workers’ compensation judge concluded that Ms. Canavan was unable to return to work. The hospital ultimately appealed the decision of the workers’ compensation judge to the Supreme Judicial Court on the grounds that Dr. LaCava’s opinions were not scientifically reliable under the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals.
The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the decision of the workers’ compensation board and refused to admit Dr. LaCava’s testimony. In rejecting Dr. LaCava’s testimony, the Court noted that his opinions were based primarily upon his own personal observations and clinical experience, and were not grounded in any scientifically reliable methodology. The Court also emphasized that Dr. LaCava was unable to identify any specific studies demonstrating the existence of MCS, nor was he able to identify any tests that can be performed to prove that a patient suffers from MCS. Moreover, on cross- examination, Dr. LaCava admitted that there was a dispute in the medical community regarding the existence of MCS. As a result, the Court concluded that Dr. LaCava’s opinions did not possess the indicia of reliability necessary to make them admissible under the Daubert standard.
The Canavan decision is significant for a number of different reasons. First, the Court adopted an abuse of discretion standard for reviewing Daubert decisions made by trial judges. As a result, decisions made by trial judges regarding the reliability of expert testimony will be given considerable deference by appellate courts. In addition, the Court affirmed that medical causation issues are appropriate subjects for Daubert challenges. Finally, the Court made it clear that, absent a showing of a scientifically reliable methodology, opinions based solely upon an expert’s personal observations and clinical experience will not be admitted into evidence. Following the Canavan decision, trial courts can expect a significant increase in the number of challenges to expert testimony.
