Expert testimony; FRE 702; Gass v. Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc.; Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.; Relevance; Berry v. City of Detroit; The Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA); Davis v. Echo Valley Condo. Ass’n; 42 USC § 3604(f); Maracich v. Spears; Jersey Heights Neighborhood Ass’n v. Glendening (4th Cir.); A Soc’y Without a Name v. Virginia (4th Cir.); Hollis v. Chestnut Bend Homeowners Ass’n; Vorchheimer v. Philadelphian Owners (3d Cir.); The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); 42 USC § 12132; Wisconsin Cmty. Servs. v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir.); 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7)(i); Roell v. Hamilton Cnty.; Smith v. City of Troy; Johnson v. City of Saline; Babcock v. Michigan; Frame v. City of Arlington (5th Cir.); Whether expert testimony was required to establish causation; Vaughn v. Konecranes, Inc. (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Kolesar v. United Agri Prods., Inc. (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Wallace v. McGlothan (7th Cir.); Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co.; Reliability; United States v. Farrad; "Multiple chemical sensitivity"; Summers v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Sys. (10th Cir.); Bradley v. Brown (7th Cir); Snyman v. W.A. Baum Co. (SD NY); Gabbard v. Linn-Benton Hous. Auth. (D OR); Coffey v. County of Hennepin (D MN); Coffin v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. (D ME); Frank v. State of NY (ND NY); Sanderson v. International Flavors & Fragances Inc. (CD CA)

The court affirmed the district court, holding that plaintiffs’ FHAA and ADA claims for failure to accommodate one plaintiff’s multiple chemical sensitivity condition failed where expert testimony was required to establish causation and the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding their experts’ opinions. Plaintiffs sued defendant-county engineer, seeking to stop road crews from using asphalt and instead use other material when repairing a road near their home. The district court dismissed the case based on the lack of causation—that asphalt in chip seal would result in harm to plaintiff-Cynthia Madej. The court expressed concern whether plaintiffs actually set forth a cognizable claim under the FHAA and Title II of the ADA, but agreed with the district court’s approach and considered “whether the doctors’ opinions were reliable enough to help answer this causation question for these federal claims.” The FHAA claim was based on defendant’s alleged failure to accommodate by using another form of road sealer that does not contain asphalt. The Title II ADA claim also involved the failure to accommodate. Both claims required plaintiffs to show that the asphalt in the chip seal would harm Cynthia. At oral argument, they conceded that they needed expert testimony to establish their claims. The issue then became the reliability of their experts. The court noted that “multiple chemical sensitivity ‘is a controversial diagnosis that has been excluded under Daubert as unsupported by sound scientific reasoning or methodology.’” Cynthia’s physicians “acknowledged that the diagnosis remains unrecognized by the American Medical Association and unlisted in the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases.” The court held that their testimony was based on “subjective belief” rather than “on an objective method that can be tested[,]” and that Cynthia’s primary-care physician’s “‘qualifications’ did not ‘provide a foundation . . . to answer’” the causation question. Thus, the absence of expert testimony warranted summary judgment for defendant.