Tam v. Monsanto Company

Background

Wesley Tam sued Monsanto over Roundup. His complaint alleged that Roundup caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, caused his teeth to fall out, and caused serious injuries, pain, discomfort, and financial expenses for medical care and treatment.

Arguments and Analysis

Tam’s counsel argued that Tam did not need an expert on specific causation because he was not seeking compensation for cancer caused by Roundup. Counsel characterized the claim instead as one for money Tam spent on Roundup, or would not have spent if he had received an adequate warning.

The court rejected that characterization for purposes of this case. It explained that the complaint described medical injuries allegedly caused by Roundup. “Specific causation” means evidence that the particular product caused the particular person’s alleged injury. The court said toxic-injury claims of the kind described in Tam’s complaint require expert testimony on specific causation.

The complaint stated that Tam purchased Roundup, but it did not make clear whether he paid for it himself or purchased it for his employer, a landscaping company. The court noted that, if Tam purchased it himself, the alternative theory suggested in his opposition brief might make him a member of a pending consumer class action in a related case. The court nevertheless treated this case as one concerning Tam’s alleged medical problems.

Ruling

Judge Vince Chhabria granted summary judgment in favor of Monsanto because Tam had failed to disclose a specific-causation expert. The opinion states that any reasonable lawyer would have known such an expert was required to prove the alleged medical injuries.