About the Course
Introduction
This CLE webinar will consider strategic takeaways on the admissibility of general causation expert testimony under FRE 702 in product liability and mass tort litigation to be gleaned from the In re Acetaminophen ASD-ADHD Prods. Liab. Litig., 707 F. Supp. 3d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) MDL. The speakers will analyze the district court's 2023 order excluding all plaintiffs' causation experts, the legal impact of President Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s actions in response to these findings, the arguments the parties made to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2025, and, if available, its decision.
Description
Plaintiffs have sued the maker of Tylenol, as well as retailers and marketers of store brand acetaminophen, alleging failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation by omission, breach of implied warranty, and design defect based on inadequate warnings that acetaminophen, when taken by pregnant mothers, can cause autism in their children. Legal commentators have suggested that "pregnancy-safe" marketing messaging by manufacturers, retailers, and pharmacy chains could trigger consumer protection and false advertising claims, and that employers and insurance companies could have claims for reimbursement and economic loss claims based on alleged concealment of risks and elevated long-term care costs.
Plaintiffs must prove, with medical causation expert testimony that meets the standards in FRE 702, that acetaminophen can cause autism, not just that there might be an association between prenatal acetaminophen use and autism. This causation analysis applies no matter the product or drug in question, and the Tylenol MDL is one of the most significant tests of amended FRE 702.
Our speakers will discuss the district court judge's holdings that all the experts in the Tylenol MDL failed under FRE 702 as a result of using mixed diagnoses, cherry-picking studies, accepting flaws in some studies but not others, and ignoring confounding factors. The case, and any decision on appeal, will be highly influential on what it means for a court to scrutinize whether an expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Listen as our esteemed panel reviews key takeaways about the importance of aligning options with medical consensus and not making analytical leaps, avoiding cherry-picking facts and studies, not getting beyond an author's own conclusions, addressing confounding factors, and not conflating diagnoses.
Presented By
Dr. Billauer Billauer is an internationally recognized scholar of the law of scientific evidence, bioethics, public health, and medical care. She earned a B.S. (Hons.) in Biology and Science Education, a Master’s Degree in Occupational Health (biomechanics), a JD, and a Ph.D. in Law. Additionally, she holds certifications in in Public Health Risk Policy and in Asbestos Management. A sought-after speaker, she has published extensively, both for the academic and lay audience, including the Harvard Bill of Health and the American Council on Science and Health. Dr. Billauer has authored or edited seven books, most recently Health Inequity and the Elderly: The Impact of COVID Pandemic-Policy, Bioethics, and the Law (2021) and is the Editor-in-Chief on Gamete Anonymity:
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
-
Date + Time
- event
Tuesday, February 10, 2026
- schedule
1:00 p.m. ET/10:00 a.m. PT
I. Overview of Tylenol MDL claims and status
II. Analysis of district court's exclusion decision
III. Arguments on appeal
IV. Strategic takeaways for admitting or excluding expert testimony on causation
The panel will explore these and other important issues:
- How should confounding factors be dealt with?
- What is transdiagnostic analysis?
- Is it for a court or a jury to decide whether an expert makes an analytical leap from available data that no other scientist outside of the litigation has made? Does that go to the weight or admissibility of the evidence?
