Readers may recall our post about Simmons v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp., a case in which the Sixth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of plaintiff’s expert testimony seeking to link osteonecrosis of the jaw to plaintiff’s use of two cancer medications. The issue was specific causation, and the court helpfully noted that a treating physician’s testimony is subject to Daubert; that an expert’s statement that he found “a very close association” between ONJ and the class of drugs is not enough; and that while a treater may be qualified to diagnose a patient, a diagnosis is merely a hypothesis, which does not by itself satisfy Daubert and Rule 702.
The Supreme Court earlier this month denied the plaintiff’s cert petition. See Simmons v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp., U.S., No. 12-283, cert. denied 11/5/12).
Plaintiff had argued that when a case involves medication that has not been widely studied, and thus published about, a different standard should apply. She also argued that the opinions would have been admissible under the law of Maryland which, she said, requires only that expert opinions be expressed “to within a reasonable degree of medical/dental probability.”
Novartis has had a number of victories in similar cases, challenging treating physicians who seek to offer expert causation opinions.