This opinion addressed potential causation testimony offered by the plaintiffs in two cases. In one case, the plaintiff’s decedent died of mesothelioma prior to being deposed. The decedent’s nephew and co-worker testified during deposition that his uncle was exposed to asbestos while working as a sheet metal worker at shipyards, and while installing furnaces, from the 1960s-70s. His testimony included exposure to insulation, packing, gaskets, and pipe covering used in connection with Crane valves. In the second case, the decedent, a career Navy man, died of mesothelioma and his shipmate testified regarding asbestos insulation and gaskets used with Crane valves on the USS Noa. The plaintiffs’ counsel retained Dr. Strauchen, who concluded that cumulative exposures to asbestos from Crane valves were a substantial contributing factor in causing both mesotheliomas. The plaintiffs also retained Dr. Steven Markowitz to testify that exposure to chrysotile asbestos was capable of causing mesothelioma.
Defendant Crane Co. moved in limine for an order precluding the plaintiffs from offering the “each and every exposure” opinion, rather than providing scientific assessments of specific doses of asbestos. In the alternative, Crane requested a Frye hearing to evaluate the foundation of causation testimony offered by the plaintiffs’ experts. The court denied both requests.
The court stated: “New York law requires that ‘an opinion on causation should set forth a plaintiff’s exposure to a toxin, that the toxin is capable of causing the particular illness (general causation), and that plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the illness (specific causation) (citations omitted).’” New York case law has held that “so long as plaintiffs’ experts have provided a scientific expression of plaintiffs’ exposure levels, they will have laid an adequate foundation for their opinions on specific causation.” Further, the link between asbestos and disease that provided a basis for general causation has been well documented. The court was not persuaded by Crane’s arguments because case law acknowledged that often a plaintiff’s exposure to a toxin will be difficult or impossible to quantify. Things such as intensity of exposure may be more important than the cumulative dose, and the plaintiff’s work history can be used to estimate exposure. Crane furnished no basis for why the same could not be done in these cases.