Cole v. Ecolab, Inc

Background

These consolidated cases involved plaintiffs who worked as hospital housekeepers, also called environmental service workers. They alleged that exposure to OxyCide, a surface disinfectant manufactured by Ecolab, caused asthma-like symptoms and other respiratory or physical problems. Their claims included strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment.

The motion concerned Dr. Gurumurthy Ramachandran, an industrial-hygiene expert retained by the plaintiffs. He conducted an experiment intended to estimate personal exposure to peroxyacetic acid when diluted OxyCide was used to wipe surfaces. His experiment used OxyCide obtained through Walmart from a third-party internet seller rather than from Ecolab or an authorized Ecolab vendor. The product bottles had no expiration-date stamps, and Dr. Ramachandran did not test whether the product was expired or know how it had been stored.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs expert testimony. It requires the expert’s specialized knowledge to help the fact-finder, the testimony to rest on sufficient facts or data, the methods to be reliable, and the expert to have reliably applied those methods to the case. Under the rule and the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the court must screen expert evidence for relevance and reliability.

Court’s reasoning

Dr. Ramachandran’s experiment measured peroxyacetic acid exposure during simulated wiping tasks. He reported that exposure exceeded the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists’ recommendation of 0.4 parts per million during each of 12 runs.

The court concluded that the experiment lacked a reliable foundation. The plaintiffs had not sufficiently shown that the tested product was genuine OxyCide, unexpired, and properly stored. The court found this was not merely a factual dispute for a jury to weigh; it undermined the assumptions supporting the expert’s testing method. The court also cited the principle that experimental evidence requires a foundational showing that the testing conditions are substantially similar to the conditions at issue.

Ecolab also argued that the simulated experiment did not resemble the plaintiffs’ actual use or exposure and that the testing chamber produced unusually high readings. Because the court excluded the testimony based on the product’s inadequate foundation, it did not address those additional arguments.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted Ecolab’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Gurumurthy Ramachandran. The order excluded his expert opinion and testimony. It did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims or state that the case itself was dismissed. The footnote explains that the ruling applies to the consolidated cases in which the same motions were pending; for cases outside that group, the ruling is without prejudice.