Plaintiff Shane Goff filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, PeaceHealth (Defendant), alleging that PeaceHealth failed to reasonably accommodate his religious opposition to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. PeaceHealth defended its actions, asserting that it had provided reasonable accommodations and that continuing to employ Goff without vaccination would have created an undue hardship on its operations.
The Defendant also sought to exclude the opinions and report of Goff’s expert, Dr. Richard Scott French, arguing that the evidence failed to meet the standards outlined in Rule 702 and Daubert.
Emergency Medicine Expert Witness
Richard Scott French, MD, is a board-certified emergency medicine physician and an active and experienced clinician who managed emergency departments, clinics, and at-risk populations during the pandemic and was able to successfully mitigate COVID-19 transmission without the use of a vaccine mandate. He also has professional experience teaching and presenting at medical schools on immunology, as well as viral transmission prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and management.
Discussion by the Court
Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s expert, French, relied on unreliable methodologies and reasoning in his opinions and report. Dr. Seth Cohen, Clinical Associate Professor in the Division of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the University of Washington and Medical Director of Infection Prevention at the University of Washington Medical Center, reviewed French’s report and provided a detailed rebuttal. Plaintiff did not respond to Cohen’s rebuttal.
The Court reviewed French’s report, which can be categorized into two overarching opinions: (1) the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine are unproven, and (2) COVID-19 exposure risks can be effectively mitigated without requiring vaccination. The Court found these opinions inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert, identifying three significant deficiencies.
A. Rancourt Study
First, French relied on the “Rancourt Study” to support his opinion that the COVID-19 vaccines are neither safe nor effective. He described the study as comprehensive, citing its graphs, charts, and methodological descriptions. However, the Court determined that the study’s length and visual data did not establish its scientific legitimacy, labeling it as junk science.
Plaintiff failed to rebut the compelling opinion of Defendant’s expert, Cohen, who noted that the Rancourt Study “inexplicably… ignores that excess deaths across the world correlated with spikes of confirmed COVID-19 cases rather than vaccine rollouts.” Additionally, French did not provide a valid explanation for why the Rancourt Study, and his opinion based on it, should be considered reliable, especially given that it contradicts the broad scientific consensus that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.
B. Outbreak Report
Second, French cited an outbreak report to argue that COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective in mitigating transmission. The report found that 74% of the COVID-19 cases occurred in fully vaccinated individuals. From this finding, French opined that “even as early as 2021, the literature did not demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccines were effective in transmission mitigation of COVID-19 infection.” However, the outbreak report explained that this result reflected high vaccination rates in the geographic area studied, not vaccine inefficacy. It concluded that the data was insufficient to evaluate vaccine effectiveness against variants like Delta and emphasized that vaccination remained the most critical strategy to prevent severe illness and death.
The Court found that French’s interpretation of the outbreak report misrepresented its findings, as the report explicitly stated that vaccination was key in reducing severe illness. This misinterpretation further undermined the reliability of French’s reasoning and conclusions.
C. Cohort Study
Third, French relied on a cohort study to assert that COVID-19 vaccines increased the risk of transmission. However, the cohort study explicitly recommended “increasing population immunity via booster programmes and vaccination” and concluded that “this analysis suggests that direct protection of individuals at risk of severe outcomes, via vaccination and non-pharmacological interventions, will remain central to containing the burden of disease caused by the delta variant.” French’s opinion directly contradicted the scientific research it relied on, misrepresenting the study’s findings.
The Court concluded that French’s overarching opinions regarding vaccine safety and alternative COVID-19 mitigation strategies were based on flawed methodologies and misinterpretations of the studies he cited. Further, the Court also found that French’s opinion on this subject falls below accepted standards of reliability, as his conclusions were repeatedly shown to contradict the very scientific research he relied upon. As a result, the Court excluded his opinions and report as inadmissible evidence under Rule 702 and Daubert.
Held
The Court granted the Defendant’s motion in limine to strike Richard Scott French’s testimony.
Key Takeaway:
- French’s reliance on the Rancourt Study to argue that COVID-19 vaccines are neither safe nor effective was deemed inadmissible by the Court. The Court dismissed the study as junk science, highlighting that its methodology lacked scientific credibility and failed to meet the standards of Rule 702 and Daubert.
- French’s opinion that vaccines increase the risk of transmission was unsupported by reliable scientific data or consensus. In fact, he misinterpreted key studies, including the Outbreak Report and Cohort Study, which he cited to support his claims. These studies were used incorrectly to bolster his flawed argument.
- Both the Outbreak Report and the Cohort Study explicitly recommended vaccination as an essential measure to prevent severe outcomes and reduce the disease burden. Contrary to French’s interpretation, the studies emphasized the importance of vaccination in controlling the spread of COVID-19 and preventing serious health risks.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Shane Goff V. Peacehealth |
| Docket Number: | 6:22cv1991 |
| Court: | United States District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Order Date: | December 4, 2024 |
Leave a Reply