The opinion of the court was delivered by: Levy, United States Magistrate Judge
Defendants Springs Industries, Inc. and Dundee Mills, Inc. (collectively, "defendants" or "Dundee") move to preclude the reports and testimony of three of plaintiffs' expert witnesses, Joseph Carfi, M.D., Leonard Freifelder, Ph.D, and Lisa Altshuler, Ph.D. For the reasons stated below, Dr. Carfi is directed to appear in court for a Daubert hearing on the issue of medical causation with respect to Joseph Israel's eczema. The remainder of his report and testimony are inadmissible under Daubert. In addition, to the extent Dr. Altshuler has rendered an opinion as to the cause of Joseph's medical conditions, that portion of her opinion is inadmissible, but the remainder is admissible. Finally, Dr. Freifelder's report and testimony are inadmissible in their entirety.
This case was removed from state court in August 1998. Familiarity with plaintiffs' claims is assumed. Briefly, however, plaintiffs allege that Joseph Israel ("Joseph"), who is presently eleven years old,*fn1 has suffered certain medical conditions that have as their root cause the Dundee crib sheets on which he slept as an infant, starting at the age of approximately 3-4 months.*fn2 (See generally Complaint, dated July 9, 1998.) According to plaintiffs, the packaging on the sheets indicated that they were 100% cotton, when in fact they were not. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 11.) Because Joseph allegedly was allergic to non-cotton synthetic products (id. ¶ 9), plaintiffs contend that his exposure to the synthetic material caused a severe allergic reaction that exacerbated his atopic dermatitis and caused him to suffer permanent physical and psychological injuries. To support their claims, plaintiffs have named as experts, inter alia, Dr. Joseph Carfi, a physiatrist, Dr. Leonard Freifelder, an economist, and Dr. Lisa Altshuler, a pediatric psychologist. Defendants move to preclude the reports and testimony of all three experts under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that: if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
In Daubert, 509 U.S. 579, the Supreme Court stated that before admitting evidence under Rule 702, the trial judge is required to ensure that the scientific testimony or evidence is both reliable and relevant. Id. at 589. The court must assess whether the expert's opinion is grounded in "methods and procedures of science," whether it consists of more than simply "subjective belief or unsupported speculation" (id. at 589), and "whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and . . . properly can be applied to the facts in issue." Id. at 592-93. In making this determination, the court may consider the following (nonexclusive) factors: (1) whether the theory or technique can be (and has been) tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) general acceptance in the scientific community. Id. at 591-93. Other factors courts tend to take into account include: (a) the existence of standards controlling the technique's operation, (b) the relationship of the technique to methods that have been established to be reliable, (c) the qualifications of the expert witness, and (d) the non-judicial uses to which the method has been put. In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 742 n.8 (3d Cir. 1994); Finley v. NCR Corp., 964 F. Supp. 882, 885 (D.N.J. 1996). Finally, the court must determine "whether the experts are proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have devolved their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying." Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995). The proponent of the expert's testimony bears the burden of establishing its admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593 n.10.
The Second Circuit has adopted a flexible interpretation of Daubert. In Borawick v. Shay, 68 F.3d 597, 610 (2d Cir. 1995), the court explained that: by loosening the strictures on scientific evidence set by Frye, Daubert reinforces the idea that there should be a presumption of admissibility of evidence. Second, it emphasizes the need for flexibility in assessing whether evidence is admissible. Rather than using rigid "safeguards" for determining whether testimony should be admitted, the Court's approach is to permit the trial judge to weigh the various considerations pertinent to the issue in question. Third, Daubert allows for the admissibility of scientific evidence, even if not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, provided its reliability has independent support.
Finally, the Court has expressed its faith in the power of the adversary system to test "shaky but admissible" evidence and advanced a bias in favor of admitting evidence short of that solidly and indisputably proven to be reliable.*fn3 Moreover, in Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999), the Supreme Court emphasized that courts have "broad latitude" in deciding whether and how to apply the Daubert factors and that "the relevant reliability concerns may focus upon personal knowledge or experience." In fact, "[i]n certain fields, experience is the predominant, if not sole, basis for a great deal of reliable expert testimony." FED. R. EVID. 702 advisory committee's note (2000). The Court in Kumho Tire also stressed that the Daubert elements are not a definitive checklist and that the trial court's gatekeeping inquiry must be "flexible" and "tied to the facts of a particular case." Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 150. See also Heller v. Shaw Indus., Inc., 167 F.3d 146, 152 (3d Cir. 1999) ("the district court's gatekeeper role is a flexible one and . . . the factors are simply useful signposts, not dispositive hurdles that a party must overcome in order to have expert testimony admitted."). The primary objective is "to make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field." Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 152.
Importantly, however, "[i]f the witness is relying solely or primarily on experience, then the witness must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached . . . and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts. The trial court's gatekeeping function requires more than simply 'taking the expert's word for it.'" Thomas v. City of Chattanooga, 398 F.3d 426, 432 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting FED. R. EVID. 702 advisory committee note), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 338 (2005). In other words, expert opinions are inadmissible if based on speculative assumptions. See In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988, 37 F.3d 804, 824 (2d Cir. 1994) (overruled on other grounds by Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217 (1996), as recognized in Brink's Ltd. v. South African Airways, 93 F.3d 1022, 1029 (2d Cir. 1996)). See also Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 157 ("Opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert" should not be admitted.).
According to his curriculum vitae, Dr. Carfi is a board certified physician in the fields of physical medicine and rehabilitation and is a board certified medical examiner. (Affidavit of Jonathan A. Judd, Esq., dated Feb. 16, 2006 ("Judd Aff."), Ex. J(2).) Dr. Carfi earned his M.D. from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in 1981 and completed his hospital training through residences at New York University Medical Center, Bellevue Hospital, and the Rusk Institute. (Id.) Dr. Carfi has an extensive list of presentations and publications, most dealing with his specialties of rehabilitation and physical medicine. (Id.)
Dr. Carfi's medical specialty is physical medicine and rehabilitation. (Affidavit of Joseph Carfi, M.D., sworn to May 23, 2006 ("Carfi Aff."), ¶ 2, annexed as Ex. CC, Part 1, to Pls.' Opp'n.) This specialty is "'concerned with diagnosis, evaluation, and management of persons of all ages, physical and/or cognitive impairment and disability'[.]" (Id. (quoting the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation website, http://www.abpmr.org (last visited Aug. 2, 2006)).) Additionally, "'Physiatrists are trained in the . . . long term management of patients with disabling conditions.'" (Id.) Dr. Carfi therefore has received training in caring for a variety of musculoskeletal conditions and chronic disabilities; however, he has never treated an individual with atopic dermatitis or allergies. (Deposition of Joseph Carfi, M.D., dated July 16, 2004 ("Carfi Dep."), annexed to the Judd Aff. as Ex. K, at 26-27, 81-82, 122.) Nor is he board certified in allergy. (Id. at 75.)
Plaintiffs intend to offer Dr. Carfi's testimony on four distinct points: (1) that Joseph's medical condition was caused by "exposure to the synthetic fiber allergen"; (2) that Joseph "will incur extraordinary costs associated with his illness" which are delineated in a "Life Care Plan" that Dr. Carfi has created for Joseph; (3) that Joseph is "quite delayed in terms of educational skills"; and (4) "that his employment opportunities will be severely hampered." (Report on Joseph Israel by Dr. Joseph Carfi, dated Apr. 1, 2004 ("Carfi Report"), at 5, annexed as Ex. CC, Part 2 to Pls.' Opp'n.) Each of these opinions will be considered in turn.
Dr. Carfi's assessment of Joseph's case consisted of a review of Joseph's medical history written by Joseph's mother, a review of some of Joseph's medical records, and an approximately hour-long examination of Joseph.*fn4 (Carfi Report at 1-5.) From these, Dr. Carfi concluded that the specific cause of Joseph's "current severely exacerbated medical condition" was the "chronic and intimate exposure to the synthetic fiber." (Id. at 5.) It is unclear from this statement what aspect of Joseph's medical condition Dr. Carfi is referring to. Joseph's medical records indicate that Joseph suffers from chronic sinusitis, asthma, eczema, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and severe food allergies.*fn5 (Id. at 2.) Dr. Carfi's report also indicates that Joseph is allergic to antibiotics and latex. (Id. at 3, 5; see also Carfi Dep. at 52.) Dr. Carfi's statement appears to suggest that all of Joseph's ailments stem from his exposure to the polyester in the crib sheets. However, in his deposition, Dr. Carfi testified, "[i]f you ask me what percentage is gastrointestinal, what percent is polyester, I can't give you that breakdown" (Carfi Dep. at 76), suggesting that the polyester may not have caused or contributed to Joseph's gastroesophageal reflux disease or food allergies. Later in the deposition, Dr. Carfi stated, "I can't give you a breakdown of GI versus pulmonary, versus the allergy to the synthetic fibers," suggesting that Joseph's asthma may not have been caused or affected by exposure to the sheets. (Id. at 105.) Indeed, when asked whether he could point "to any medical record that establishes or even suggests that the other conditions from which [Joseph] suffered [asthma, food allergies, gastrointestinal problems, sinusitis] cascaded from his exposure to the polyester," Dr. Carfi answered, "I cannot, no." (Id.) When asked whether he believed the exposure to polyester was the sole cause of all of Joseph's medical conditions, Dr. Carfi replied, "I never said it was the sole cause. . . . What I said was it was a significant substantial cause of his current problems and how everything flowed . . . from that initial contact."*fn6 (Id.) His report, however, seems to implicate the polyester for all of Joseph's conditions. This is confirmed by the Life Care Plan (annexed as Ex. CC, Part 3, to Pls.' Opp'n), discussed further below, which lists Neocate, Joseph's food substitute, and pulmonary care, for asthma, as costs. Dr. Carfi testified that the costs he determined in the Life Care Plan are those that Joseph will incur due to the exposure to the polyester in the sheets. (Carfi Dep. at 104.)
Plaintiffs mistakenly argue that because two other experts -- Drs. Stewart H. Young and Vincent Beltrani -- are qualified to testify, Dr. Carfi should also be allowed to testify. (See Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Second Motion, dated May 30, 2006 ("Pls.' Mem."), at 3-4.) Plaintiffs also mistakenly assert that the only issue in this case is general causation, and seem to imply that this is what Dr. Carfi's report discusses. (Id. at 5.) Drs. Young and Beltrani will present testimony on the issue of whether polyester is a recognized allergic trigger, addressing general causation. Dr. Carfi, however, opines that the polyester in the sheets caused Joseph's symptoms, which addresses specific causation. Also, notwithstanding plaintiffs' contention, it is glaringly obvious that specific causation is at issue both in this motion and in the case as a whole.
Defendants argue that Dr. Carfi's testimony on causation is unreliable because he relied on insufficient or inappropriate data. Specifically, they argue that Dr. Carfi: (1) relied extensively on a medical history provided by Joseph's mother, including the written history that she did not sign or date; (2) failed to obtain a full family medical history; (3) failed to review all relevant medical documents but instead relied only on records "sufficient to give [him] a synopsis" of Joseph's condition; (4) failed to read the records of Joseph's pulmonologist; and (5) failed to review any medical records from the period before he began sleeping on the sheets. (Defs.' Mem. at 6, 7.) Additionally, defendants claim that Dr. Carfi's opinions are not reliable because they are not based on reliable scientific principles and methods.
Given the liberal standard set by the Second Circuit, Dr. Carfi's training certainly qualifies him as an expert in his ability to determine medical causation and to create a Life Care Plan. However, three gaps in Dr. Carfi's analysis merit discussion: his failure to review Joseph's records from birth, including those of Joseph's pediatrician; his failure to seek out more complete medical records in the case of Joseph's gastrointestinal problems and food allergies; and his failure to consult the family history. Dr. Carfi argues that the pre-exposure records are immaterial because the defendants' expert on general causation stated that he did not need to review them extensively. (Carfi Aff. ¶ 19.) But that expert opines that polyester is not an allergen and, accordingly, that Joseph could not have developed his condition from the polyester in the sheets. That is very different from saying that it was the polyester that caused Joseph's medical problems, which is Dr. Carfi's position. Knowledge of Joseph's medical condition pre-exposure is thus highly relevant, particularly in light of defendants' claim that Joseph was born with a rash covering part of his body.*fn7 (Defs.' Mem. at 1. See also Records of treating pediatrician Dr. Melvin Koplow,*fn8 annexed as Ex. I to the Judd Aff.) Dr. Carfi also did not know the frequency of Joseph's hospital admissions after August 1997, when plaintiffs claim Joseph stopped sleeping on the crib sheets. (Carfi Dep. at 35.)
Greater knowledge of Joseph's food allergies would also be important, as Dr. Carfi opines that Joseph's food allergies stem from his exposure to polyester. Dr. Carfi did not know when the food allergies began or had first been diagnosed (Carfi Dep. at 55-56),*fn9 and he reviewed ...