Sterigenics US LLC v. Mutz (and consolidated cases), Nos. A25A1377–A25A1392, 2025 WL 3041770, __ S.E.2d __ (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2025). The court (Barnes, P.J.; Brown, C.J., concurring; Watkins, J., concurring specially) vacated the orders and remanded with direction.
The court addresses the admissibility of general causation expert testimony in toxic-tort cases under OCGA § 24-7-702(b). The trial court had admitted testimony of one causation expert related to Plaintiff’s cancer claims, but excluded other experts (including opinions on birth defects). The trial court then denied summary judgment on the cancer claims and granted it on the birth-defect claims. Ms.** 1–6.
The court of appeals held that Georgia trial courts must follow the Eleventh Circuit’s McClain framework and its progeny when evaluating expert reliability in toxic-tort cases, given that Rule 702(b) mirrors the federal rule. McClain allows expert testimony either where the medical community widely recognizes the toxin and causation is presumed, or where there is proof of reliability through dose–response, epidemiology, or background-risk methodologies. Cite to McClain The trial court, however, erred by creating a “third way” that treated ethylene oxide (EtO) as falling between McClain’s two categories and by accepting “any exposure” opinions without identifying a harmful threshold dose. Ms.** 2–4, 6–7.
The court directed the trial court to determine on remand whether EtO belongs to Category 1, where the medical community widely recognizes the toxin and causation is presumed, or Category 2, which requires proof of reliability through dose–response, epidemiology, or background-risk methodologies. The admissibility of expert testimony and related summary-judgment rulings must then be reevaluated under those standards. Ms.** 6–7.