Jeanne Diane Collins v. Bayer Corporation, No. 11-11680 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-11680 ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 24, 2012 JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:08-md-01928-DMM JEANNE DIANE COLLINS, as surviving statutory beneficiary for the wrongful death of Floyd Collins, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BAYER CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (April 24, 2012) Before HULL and COX, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN,* District Judge. PER CURIAM: After review and oral argument before this Court, we conclude that PlaintiffAppellant Jeanne Diane Collins has shown no reversible error in the district court s order, dated 31 January 2011, granting summary judgment in favor of DefendantAppellee Bayer Corporation ( Bayer ). Collins has also shown no abuse of discretion in the district court s order, dated 17 March 2011, denying Collins s 11 February 2011 motion for either a Daubert hearing or appointment of an independent expert witness, which motion was filed after the court s ruling on Bayer s summary judgment motion. Among other things, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert opinions of Dr. Toback and Dr. Ahmed, for the reasons outlined in the district court s summary judgment order. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Bayer on Collins s products liability, personal injury, and unfair competition and false advertising claims, because Collins lacked evidence as to causation. AFFIRMED. * The Honorable Dudley H. Bowen, Jr., United States District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
