Toxicology Expert’s Testimony on Gasoline Exposure Admitted

Plaintiff Ashley Adams, the widow of Lonnie Adams filed suit against E-Z Mart, a gas station and convenience store, after Mr. Adams died while working in an underground tank sump on E-Z Mart’s property.

Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Yates Group, Inc. f/k/a E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. filed a Rule 702 motion to limit Dr. Ian McIntyre‘s testimony pursuant to Daubert.

Toxicology Expert Witness

Ian Matthew McIntyre is a forensic toxicologist. His professional experience encompasses over 34 years of work in the specific scientific field of forensic toxicology, with particular emphasis on postmortem analysis.

Want to know more about the challenges Ian McIntyre has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

E-Z Mart argued that McIntyre’s opinion that gasoline may leach methamphetamine from tissue, resulting in higher concentrations being detected in the bloodstream, is ipse dixit, not supported by scientific literature, and too large an inferential leap to be admissible.

In the present case, the relevance of McIntyre’s opinion is undisputed. The only question the Court must resolve is whether it is sufficiently reliable pursuant to 702 and Daubert. The Court found that it is. McIntyre elaborated on how he reached his conclusion in his deposition, and the Court finds that his stated rationale, viewed in light of his education and experience, made the challenged opinion reliable under Daubert and 702. Additionally, McIntyre cited to published literature he referenced in forming this opinion. The simple fact that the Defendant’s experts disagreed with McIntyre’s findings did not render them inadmissible.

Held

The Court denied Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff’s motion to limit Dr. Ian McIntyre’s testimony.

Key Takeaway

Establishing reliability does not require showing that the expert’s testimony is “indisputably correct.”

To the extent McIntyre’s opinions are insufficiently explained or contradicted by other studies or experts, the Plaintiff should raise these challenges through cross examination and the testimony of their own experts.

Case Details:

Case Caption:	Adams v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc.
Docket Number:	6:23cv278
Court Name:	United States District Court, Oklahoma Eastern
Order Date:	March 03, 2026