Category Archives: Expert Challenges

Plaintiffs’ Daubert Challenge Denied as Expert Disclaims Causation Expertise United States District Court, D. Maryland, July 17, 2017

Plaintiffs filed their Daubert challenge seeking exclusion of Georgia Pacific’s Certified Industrial Hygienist, Donald Marano. Plaintiff argued that Mr. Marano would offer qualitative and quantitative exposures of Plaintiff along with the risk and causation of Mr. Arbogast’s mesothelioma. Georgia Pacific countered with the position that Mr. Marano has “repeatedly disclaimed any expertise on causation and has confined his opinion to explaining the risk assessments performed by various agencies and organizations and offering his risk assessment opinion based on the analysis that his profession is trained…

Continue Reading....

Exclusion of Plaintiffs’ Causation Experts Leads to Granting of Summary Judgment United States District Court, D. Maryland, July 17, 2017

Plaintiffs filed suit against Georgia Pacific (“GP”) and Union Carbide Corporation (“UCC”) alleging Mr. Rockman’s peritoneal mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos for which both Defendants were responsible. Specifically, Mr. Rockman claimed “bystander” exposure to GP’s Ready Mix joint compound that contained UCC’s Calidria chrysotile asbestos during residential renovations in 1965, 1973 and 1976. Plaintiff stated that he was exposed during his time living in a Brooklyn apartment when a ceiling was repaired in 1965, again in 1973 during wall repair in Baltimore, MD…

Continue Reading....

NYCAL Court Denies Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff’s Causation Experts Supreme Court of New York, New York County, April 14. 2017

The court issued further rulings in a case previously reported in Asbestos Case Tracker on April 12, 2017. This case involved plaintiff Frederick Evans’ alleged exposure to asbestos-containing dust from his work as an HVAC mechanic from 1955-59. Although the defendants submitted a joint omnibus motion in limine, the only defendant remaining at trial was Burnham LLC. Here, the motion in limine to exclude the causation opinions of the plaintiffs’ experts Dr. Carl Brodkin and Dr. John Maddox was denied. Burnham argued the plaintiffs’ causation…

Continue Reading....

Daubert Challenges Result in Experts Being Allowed to Testify Regarding General Causation; Not Specific Causation U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, March 6, 2017

In this federal court case, it was alleged that the plaintiff’s decedent was exposed to asbestos while serving in various job duties while in the U.S. Navy during the 1960s.  The plaintiff brought two Daubert motions seeking to preclude the defendants’ experts, Drs Michael Graham and Mark Taragin, from testifying. Dr. Graham is a forensic pathologist and Dr. Taragin is an epidemiologist.  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motions. The court would allow each expert to provide general causation testimony…

Continue Reading....

Kentucky Appellate Court Rejects “Any Exposure” Causation Theory U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, January 10, 2017

In September of 2012, William Stallings filed suit in Kentucky state court against Georgia Pacific and other manufacturers of the asbestos containing products he had been exposed to decades earlier, seeking punitive damages under theories of strict liability and negligence. Specifically, Stallings was diagnosed with mesothelioma allegedly caused by his four years of Naval Service, where he helped operate and maintain boilers aboard the USS Waller. After leaving the Navy, Stallings worked as a drywall finisher, where he alleged exposure from mixing and installing drywall.…

Continue Reading....

Mixed Decision on Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Dr. James Millette U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, October 11, 2016

The defendants (pump and valve manufactures) filed a motion in limine to exclude certain studies and videos produced by the plaintiff’s expert Dr. James Millette. The defendants challenged two aspects of Dr. Millette’s proposed testimony. First, they argued that some — but not all — of the academic studies that Dr. Millette relied on are not reliable and do not fit the facts of the case, and thus should be precluded from discussing them at trial. Second, the defendants argued that Dr. Millette should not…

Continue Reading....

Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Testimony of General Causation Not Permitted to Prove Specific Causation in Mesothelioma Case U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, October 5, 2016

The defendants moved in limine to preclude testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts Drs. Kradin, Kraus and Parker for their reliance on the “each and every exposure” methodology of causation. The court began its analysis by stating the standard for expert qualification, which includes: 1) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact issue 2) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data 3) the testimony is the product of…

Continue Reading....

Court Reverses Verdict Against Crane Co. and Remands as to Cigarette Defendants After Daubert Challenge Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, September 14, 2016

Plaintiff Richard Delisle filed suit against multiple defendants alleging he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to sheet gaskets manufactured by Crane Co. and from the asbestos fibers from Micronite filters from smoking Kent cigarettes. The jury found both defendants’ products were a substantial contributing cause (SCC) of the development of Delisle’s mesothelioma. Both defendants unsuccessfully moved for directed verdicts and filed for appeal. Crane Co. argued that the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. James Dahlgren should not have been permitted to testify as an expert…

Continue Reading....

Appellate Court Allows Industrial Hygienist’s Reliance on Hearsay Evidence in Overturning Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant Lumber Company Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division One, July 27, 2016

The plaintiff, Jerry Charlifue, sued Goodman Lumber Company after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He worked as a taper and painter for U.S. Taping Company between 1972 and 1978. His duties involved applying joint compound and smoothing out walls and ceilings where drywall had been hung. The plaintiff worked with dry joint compound for the first three to four years of the job, which produced respirable dust. Goodman moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff could not prove that he was exposed…

Continue Reading....

Supreme Court Finds Plaintiff’s Expert “Cumulative Exposure Theory” Does Not Fit Georgia Causation Standard and Reverses Judgment in Favor of Defendant Georgia Supreme Court, July 5, 2016

In a follow up to a case previously reported on in ACT, the Georgia Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals of Georgia with respect to the admission of testimony from the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Jerrod Abraham, and his “Cumulative Exposure Theory.” This case first commenced when the plaintiff and his wife, Roy and Milva Knight, sued Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., alleging that Roy’s mesothelioma was caused from exposure to asbestos while he was working…

Continue Reading....