## Facts

- Marvin Sean Marsee began using Copenhagen Brand Snuff at age 12 and used four or more cans per week until age 18.
- In April 1983, Sean was diagnosed with cancer on the right lateral border of the tongue; after multiple operations, the cancer spread and he died about nine months later.
- Betty Ann Marsee, as administratrix of Sean’s estate, brought a products-liability action alleging the snuff caused Sean’s oral cancer and death.
- Causation was the central disputed issue at trial.
- Plaintiff presented extensive proof, including 31 witnesses (14 experts) and 140 exhibits.
- Plaintiff’s oncologist expert testified that snuff can cause oral cancer and that Sean’s cancer was caused by the defendant’s snuff.
- On redirect, plaintiff sought to elicit detailed accounts of the expert’s conversations with other physicians about other patients; the court excluded the details as hearsay while allowing the expert’s opinion and general basis testimony.
- Plaintiff also sought to introduce evidence that another smokeless-tobacco user developed similar cancer; the court treated this as minimally probative on causation.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding, as hearsay, detailed testimony about other physicians’ statements concerning other patients that plaintiff offered to bolster the expert’s causation opinion.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding or limiting additional causation-related evidence (including scientific/epidemiological reports and anecdotal “similar case” proof) in a way that denied plaintiff a fair trial.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict for the defendant.
- The court held the challenged evidentiary and discovery rulings were within the district court’s discretion.
- The court concluded plaintiff had a full opportunity to present causation evidence through extensive expert testimony and exhibits, and the adverse verdict reflected the jury’s evaluation of competing proof rather than improper restriction of evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Evidentiary and discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; appellate courts give substantial deference to trial management in complex, evidence-heavy cases.
- An expert may rely on otherwise inadmissible information if it is of a type reasonably relied upon in the field, but that does not require admitting the underlying statements for their truth.
- Trial courts may limit disclosure of detailed hearsay basis testimony where the expert’s opinion and essential basis are admitted and the additional details would be cumulative, confusing, or time-consuming.
- Scientific reports and studies may be excluded as cumulative when experts testify to their substance and conclusions, and the documents themselves add limited probative value.
- Isolated anecdotal “similar case” evidence provides little proof of general or specific causation in a toxic-tort/products-liability setting and may be excluded or given minimal weight.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld a defense verdict in a smokeless-tobacco cancer case, finding no abuse of discretion where the trial court allowed extensive expert causation testimony but excluded detailed hearsay accounts of other physicians’ statements, declined to admit cumulative scientific reports, and treated single similar-case anecdotes as weak proof of causation.


Marsee v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 866 F.2d 319 (10th Cir. 1989)