Case: 16-30172 Document: 00513726618 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-30172 FILED
October 20, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
NATALIE KONRICK, Clerk
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; CHALMETTE REFINING, L.L.C.,
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:14-CV-524
Before JOLLY, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff Natalie Konrick worked as a security guard at a refinery in
Louisiana that was owned by Defendant Chalmette Refinery, L.L.C., and
operated by Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation. 1 Konrick sued Defendants,
alleging that exposure to toxins while at work caused the stillbirth of her baby.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1 In response to our request for supplemental briefing regarding the citizenship of
Chalmette Refinery, L.L.C., Defendants filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer
that specified Chalmette’s citizenship. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1653, we GRANT Defendants’
motion and note that the district court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction.
Case: 16-30172 Document: 00513726618 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2016
No. 16-30172
The district court granted Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony
of Doctors Robert Harrison, Cynthia Bearer, and Lauren Waters on general
causation because it found their opinions were based on unreliable
methodologies. The district court then granted summary judgment in favor of
the Defendants because there was no evidence of general causation. On
appeal, Konrick argues that the district court erred in excluding the experts’
testimony.
After reviewing the briefs and record, we find no abuse of discretion. See
Compaq Comput. Corp. v. Ergonome Inc., 387 F.3d 403, 408 (5th Cir. 2004).
“District courts must carefully analyze the studies on which experts rely for
their opinions before admitting their testimony.” Knight v. Kirby Inland
Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 355 (5th Cir. 2007). In a thorough and well-
reasoned order, the district court did just that. Furthermore, both the
Supreme Court and this court have affirmed the exclusion of expert testimony
that was based upon studies with the same flaws identified by the district
court. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 145–47 (1997); Johnson v.
Arkema, Inc., 685 F.3d 452, 460–62 (5th Cir. 2012); LeBlanc ex rel. Estate of
LeBlanc v. Chevron USA, Inc., 396 F. App’x 94, 99–100 (5th Cir. 2010); Knight,
482 F.3d at 352–55; Vargas v. Lee, 317 F.3d 498, 501–03 (5th Cir. 2003).
Ultimately, the district court fulfilled its gatekeeping function under Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny.
Accordingly, we affirm.
2