ST. LOUIS — A Missouri appellate court ruled that a lower court did not err in its decisions to exclude a witness who was not a qualified expert and in not granting a mistrial based on a comment during opening statements.
The appellate court found that the circuit court acted within its discretion and upheld the original judgment in favor of Monsanto, Judges John P. Torbitzky, Robert M. Clayton III and Michael S. Wright ruled.
In the case, Stacey Moore sued Monsanto, alleging that his exposure to the company's glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup, caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL).
Moore also claimed that Monsanto concealed the risks associated with Roundup, according to the Sept. 3 opinion filed in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District-Division Four.
After a jury ruled in favor of Monsanto, Moore appealed, citing three key errors by the circuit court: the exclusion of his expert witness, the denial of a motion for a new trial due to Monsanto’s opening statement and the failure to dismiss a juror for cause. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
Moore argued that the court wrongfully excluded his expert witness, A.S., a clinical oncologist, who was prepared to testify on the general and specific causation of Moore's NHL by Roundup.
Monsanto challenged A.S.'s qualifications, stating that while he was experienced in treating cancer, he was not an expert in fields like epidemiology or biostatistics, which were critical to determining causation.
The court agreed, excluding A.S.’s testimony. The appellate court upheld this decision, emphasizing that expert testimony must fall within the witness's area of expertise and A.S. lacked the necessary qualifications to opine on the causation of NHL by glyphosate.
During Monsanto’s opening statement, the company mentioned that Moore would not present a medical doctor to testify on causation.
Moore objected, noting that Monsanto itself had successfully excluded A.S.’s testimony and that it was unfair to comment on the absence of expert testimony.
The circuit court sustained Moore’s objection but denied his subsequent motion for a mistrial.
The appellate court found no abuse of discretion, ruling that the court’s instructions to the jury to disregard Monsanto’s comments were sufficient to remedy any potential prejudice.
Moore also claimed that a juror should have been disqualified due to his law firm’s past work for Monsanto, even though this work was more than 30 years old and involved immigration paperwork for Monsanto employees.
The court found the juror’s past involvement too remote to suggest bias and denied Moore’s request to remove him.
"The circuit court’s decision to overrule Moore’s motion to strike Juror for cause was not so clearly against the logic of the circumstances that it constituted an abuse of discretion," Torbitzky wrote in the opinion. "There was no error."
The appellate court upheld this decision, concluding there was no substantial evidence of juror bias.
The appellant was represented by Nina McDonnell.
The respondent was represented by Christine F. Miller.
Attorneys for the parties did not respond to requests for comment.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District-Division Four case number: ED112004