Harmony Moller died at age 36 in February 2023. In the ensuing Louisiana federal lawsuit, her mother challenges the testimony of defense medical toxicologist Dr. Edward Boyer.
The plaintiff says Dr. Boyer improperly ruled out kratom as a contributing cause and instead suggested an underlying heart abnormality or caffeine. The defense expert disputes kratom causation. The court documents present competing opinions, not a final judicial determination.
At a Glance
- Case: Moller v. Martian Sales, Inc., et al., No. 2:24-cv-00228-WBV-DPC, Eastern District of Louisiana.
- Filing: March 2, 2026, PACER Document 249 and 14 attachments.
- Who filed: Kathleen Moller, the plaintiff.
- What she seeks: To exclude defense expert Dr. Edward Boyer’s testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert.
- What is disputed: Whether kratom contributed to Harmony Moller’s death and whether alternative explanations are sufficiently supported.
- Status: The archive includes an unsigned proposed order, not proof the motion was granted.
The safety evidence legislators should examine
These are points drawn from the plaintiff’s memorandum and cited deposition excerpts. They are significant because they expose what remains uncertain about kratom safety, especially in people with medical conditions or taking other substances.
The plaintiff quotes Dr. Boyer acknowledging that he knew of no publication defining a maximum safe mitragynine dose and that no maximum safe dose had been defined for 7-OH. That does not establish that every dose is dangerous, but it is a substantial limitation on claims that a particular exposure is necessarily safe.
The memorandum points to testimony from Drs. Wang, Gandy, Huestis, McCurdy and Dollar. Their positions differ, but the plaintiff argues that they acknowledge possible contributions from kratom, including interactions and cardiac arrhythmia risks. A possibility is not proof of causation in this death.
The plaintiff cites deposition testimony that Dr. Boyer did not know the product’s alkaloid concentrations, ingredients or serving size and had not reviewed its testing documents. That is a product-specific knowledge challenge, not a finding that the product was defective.
The memorandum argues that Dr. Boyer generalized from limited data and cites Dr. Huestis disputing that interpretation. This matters because postmortem redistribution can affect how measured drug concentrations are interpreted after death.
The plaintiff disputes Dr. Boyer’s caffeine-toxicity theory, citing the lack of a measured caffeine level and testimony from other experts. This does not establish that caffeine played no role; it shows why the alternative-cause claim is disputed.
What the medical examiner recorded
According to the plaintiff’s memorandum quoting the autopsy, the cause of death was “Abnormally high left coronary ostia takeoff exacerbated by mitragynine use.” The underlying cardiac anatomy is important: the disputed issue is whether kratom aggravated an existing vulnerability. The autopsy and toxicology exhibit is provided below so readers can examine the original records.
The plaintiff also points to potential interactions with other substances, including diphenhydramine and promethazine. Legislators should not treat this case as proof of a kratom-only death.
Why the plaintiff wants Dr. Boyer excluded
Under federal evidence rules, expert testimony must rest on adequate facts and reliable methods. The plaintiff argues Dr. Boyer did not perform a sufficiently reliable patient-specific causation analysis, overstated postmortem redistribution, advanced a speculative caffeine theory, and lacked sufficient knowledge of OPMS Silver.
Those are the plaintiff’s legal arguments. A motion to exclude is not itself a finding that an expert was wrong or biased. The defense has an opportunity to contest these allegations.
The practical policy question is straightforward: what safety assurances can a retail product make when experts disagree about safe exposure, interactions and the interpretation of fatal toxicology?
Read the 15 PACER documents
Original filing and all 14 attachments, renamed for clarity. The original PACER document number is listed with each file. All were filed March 2, 2026.
Source and legal status: PACER filings provided from Moller v. Martian Sales, Inc., et al., case 2:24-cv-00228-WBV-DPC. The memorandum advocates the plaintiff’s position. Deposition excerpts are partial records. An unsigned proposed order is not an actual ruling. Nothing in this collection alone establishes the motion’s final disposition or a jury finding of causation.