This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P worked as a shoreline clean-up worker following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Five years later, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. P sued D, claiming that he was exposed to harmful chemicals that caused his cancer while working on the clean-up effort. At issue here is P's causation expert, Dr. Rybicki, who is a genetic and molecular epidemiologist. Rybicki reported that P was exposed to 'polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons' (PAHs)-chemical compounds that are 'ubiquitous in the environment' and occur 'in coal, peat, crude oil, and shale oils'-and that at least one of these compounds can cause prostate cancer. Rybicki pointed specifically to a compound called 'benzo(a)pyrene,' the 'most prevalent PAH,' and reported that it causes cancer in humans. Relying on animal studies and occupational studies, Rybicki concluded that occupational exposure to PAHs is associated with a 'modest' 1.5- to 2-fold increase in one's risk of prostate cancer. Rybicki applied his research through a differential etiology-a process-of-elimination approach to determining the cause of P's prostate cancer. P had a genetic risk for prostate cancer. Rybicki ruled out possible exposure during P's prior twenty-year history as a truck driver. Rybicki noted that exposure to diesel exhaust fumes (such as from large trucks) was reported to result in PAH exposure; the association is 'modest at best.' Rybicki concluded that P was exposed to PAHs during his oil-spill clean-up work. While P's genetic background was his first 'risk hit,' Rybicki concluded that 'his oil spill exposures were the second and necessary hit to initiate his prostate cancer.' Rybicki acknowledged that he did not identify a specific level of PAH exposure that is capable of causing prostate cancer in humans. Rybicki also clarified that benzo(a)pyrene is 'probably the only' PAH that is carcinogenic. Rybicki acknowledged that he did not specifically state that P was exposed to PAHs or benzo(a)pyrene and that his testimony was limited to crude-oil exposure. Rybicki emphasized that PAHs were present in oil and reiterated that P's exposure to oil was 'his most significant exposure [to PAHs] in terms of intensity.' D filed a Daubert motion to exclude Rybicki's testimony, and the district court held that Rybicki's testimony was inadmissible because it neither 'identif[ied] the harmful level of exposure to a chemical' necessary to cause prostate cancer nor proved that P was 'exposed to' that harmful level. Without expert testimony, the court determined that P lacked the evidence needed to satisfy the causation element of his claim and granted D's motion for summary judgment. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.