ST. LOUIS — A Missouri appellate court has upheld a jury verdict in favor of Monsanto Company, rejecting an appeal by a woman who alleged that exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide caused her non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Sharlean Gordon's claims included strict liability for product defects, failure to warn and negligence, all of which were dismissed by a jury in April 2023.
Gordon filed her lawsuit in July 2017, asserting that glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, was carcinogenic.
The case spent years in pre-trial litigation and culminated in a 23-day trial that featured extensive expert testimony and numerous exhibits from both sides.
Monsanto’s defense centered on expert witnesses and regulatory findings affirming that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, which ultimately swayed the jury.
Gordon’s appeal raised six points of contention, targeting the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and its management of expert testimony. The appellate court, however, affirmed the lower court’s decisions, stating that Gordon failed to demonstrate reversible error.
One key aspect of Gordon’s appeal was the exclusion of a scientific publication by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which classified glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen."
The trial court had ruled the document inadmissible as hearsay, although Gordon’s expert witness testified extensively about its findings during the trial.
The appellate court found no prejudice in the exclusion, noting that the jury heard testimony regarding the IARC report’s conclusions.
"Any error in the exclusion of evidence is harmless if the same facts are shown by other evidence," the court stated, referencing precedent. The ruling concluded that Gordon’s case was not deprived of a fair trial as the substance of the IARC findings was presented through expert testimony.
Gordon also argued that the trial court erred by restricting the testimony of her expert witness regarding the long-term animal testing of Roundup.
The court permitted limited questioning on the topic, ruling that the expert had not been disclosed as qualified to address certain aspects of the subject.
The appellate court upheld this decision, noting the trial court acted within its discretion and consulted a special master before ruling.
Despite the restrictions, Gordon’s expert was allowed to testify on key aspects of the feasibility of long-term testing. The appellate court concluded that the limitations did not deprive Gordon of a fair trial.
Another part of the appeal was the trial court’s admission of documents from regulatory bodies in Australia, Canada, and the European Union, which stated that glyphosate was neither carcinogenic nor genotoxic. Gordon argued these documents lacked the proper foundation for admissibility as public records.
The appellate court disagreed, finding that Monsanto had sufficiently established the documents’ authenticity and relevance. The court ruled that the findings within the documents were cumulative of testimony presented at trial, including statements from Gordon’s own expert witness.
Attorneys for the appellant were Aimee H. Wagstaff, Tara K. King, Emily T. Acosta, Michael A. Gross, John F. Garvey Jr. and Joseph F. Yeckel.
Attorneys for the respondent were Timothy J. Hasken, Christine F. Miller, Eric L. Hansell, Dominique Savinelli and Barbara A. Smith.
Attorneys for the parties did not respond to requests for comment.
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District case number: ED112075