Workers Compensation; evidence. Superior court has jurisdiction of appeal of summary judgment ruling even though it involves a question of law. Majority holds epidemiological causation evidence inadmissible under Daubert.

Estate of George v. Vermont League of Cities and Towns (2008-374)(14-Jan-2010) 2010 VT 1 (Skoglund, J.) (Dooley, J., concurring.) (Reiber, C.J., joined by Johnson, J., dissenting)
Claimant appeals from the superior court’s order granting summary judgment to insurer in this workers’ compensation case. He argues that the court: (1) exceeded its jurisdiction under 21 V.S.A. § 671 by granting summary judgment to insurer; and (2) abused its discretion by excluding the expert testimony that he offered. We affirm the trial court’s decision.

Commissioner certified to the superior court the following question for determination: was claimant’s NHL causally related to his work as a firefighter? Insurer moved for summary judgment arguing that the opinions of claimant’s experts should be excluded under Vermont Rule of Evidence 702 as irrelevant and scientifically unreliable, and that without any admissible evidence of causation, claimant was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits. Claimant responded that the standard for the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702, delineated in Daubert does did not apply to workers’ compensation claims in superior court; that insurer had waived its right to challenge the admissibility of the evidence by failing to raise this argument before the Commissioner; and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant a motion for summary judgment.

The fact that insurer was granted judgment as a matter of law in this case does not transform the certified question into one of pure law that must be decided only by this Court. The rules of evidence and procedure are applicable in workers’ compensation cases heard by the superior court. The court’s review of the Commissioner’s decision “involves a retrial de novo.” That means that insurer is not limited to the arguments raised below, and preservation—or lack thereof—is not at issue. The trial court was obligated to apply the rules of evidence and to determine if the expert testimony proffered by claimant was relevant and admissible. The Commissioner has no expertise in such matters, and no deference to the Commissioner’s approach is required.

Without evidence of specific causation, summary judgment was properly granted to insurer. Our law requires claimant to show, not merely that firefighting increased the likelihood of injury, but that it more likely than not caused his disease.  Claimant failed to establish good grounds for such a conclusion here. Claimant relied on epidemiological studies, studies that focus on general causation rather than specific causation.

The court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Dr. Guidotti’s opinion was not based on sufficient facts or data, and that Dr. Guidotti had not applied scientific principles and methods reliably to the facts of this case. Dr. Guidotti opined that, “within reasonable medical certainty and given the weight of evidence,” claimant’s NHL “arose from his work as a firefighter and was caused by exposures in the course of his occupation as a firefighter.” Dr. Guidotti acknowledged that the demonstration of “more likely than not” in the epidemiological literature corresponded to a relative risk, or an odds ratio, of 2.0, although he argued that this standard should not be followed here. Where six of eight epidemiological studies did not show a statistically significant risk, it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that Dr. Guidotti’s expert opinion that claimant’s NHL was more likely than not caused by firefighting lacked a solid and reliable foundation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering a relative risk greater than 2.0 as a reasonable and helpful benchmark under the circumstances presented here.

Justice Dooley writes separately to criticize the Court’s “unworkable and inconsistent distinctions” made in an attempt to resolve appellate jurisdiction in workers’ compensation cases.  The Commissioner’s ruling was the functional equivalent of granting judgment as a matter of law to insurer, and, just like the decision of the superior court, is one of law, not fact. Under Stoll, 2009 VT 61, ¶¶ 7-8, this case was appealed to the wrong court, and the appeal should be dismissed. The majority’s rationale for distinguishing Stoll puts “more mud in muddy water”. Justice Dooley says we should allow all cases like this to go to the superior court and not require that they go exclusively to this Court. Stoll v. Burlington Elec. Dep’t, 2009 VT 61, ¶ 11, ___ Vt. ___, 977 A.2d 1282 (Dooley, J., dissenting).

Chief Justice Reiber, joined by Justice Johnson concludes it was abuse of discretion to “exclude expert testimony that met the standards articulated in Daubert and adopted by this Court.” Regardless of whether the conclusions of claimant’s experts are ultimately persuasive—an issue that is not before us today—“[t]he trial court should have allowed the adversarial process to draw out any deficiencies in the expert testimony, rather than usurping the jury’s function.” Id.