1 HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP Challenging Expert Opinions: Every Fiber Does NOT Contribute...
-
Upload
irea-glass -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
2
Transcript of 1 HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP Challenging Expert Opinions: Every Fiber Does NOT Contribute...
1
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
Challenging Expert Opinions:Every Fiber Does NOT Contribute
Edward M. [email protected]
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & YoungLLP
Atlanta • Austin • Charleston • Dallas Los Angeles • St. Louis • San Francisco
2
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
The Take Away
• Expert Causation Opinions can be successfully challenged
• The strategy has to begin with the facts
• I will give you a copy of any of the rulings
3
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
Challenging Expert Opinions:Every Fiber Does NOT Contribute
• Plaintiffs causation experts should be challenged when they lack:
• Some approximation of dose
• Epidemiology showing that dose is causative
• Facts showing the plaintiffs exposure matches the epidemiology
4
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
Changing Terminology
• The Single Fiber Theory
• Every Exposure above Background
• Every “Special” Exposure
• Every “Identified” Exposure
• Every non-trivial Exposure
• No Safe Level
• Every Exposure from someone with $$$
5
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
Legal Standards Re: DOSE
• Some approximate quantification of dose– What does Borg Warner mean anymore?
• Frequency, Proximity & Duration
• Substantial Factor contributing to the cause
• Substantial Factor increasing the risk
• All require a an approximation of dose
6
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
• Clear evidence about product use
• Defense Industrial Hygienist
• Calculates Extremely Low Dose Exposure
• Calculates High Alternative Exposure
• No Plaintiff Industrial Hygienist to respond
• Plaintiffs causation expert has no foundation to estimate a dose or dose range
The Ideal Expert Challenge Scenerio
7
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
ExposureExposure Duration
(work-years)
Asbestos Concentration
(f/cc)
Cumulative Asbestos
Exposure Dose(f/cc-years)
Low High Low High
Cumulative Estimate of Vehicular Brake or
Friction Work
<0.25 Average TWA = 0.04<0.01
Ambient Lifetime Exposure
49-year lifetime equivalent
0.0001 0.001 0.021 0.21
Exposure Estimate at Current OSHA PEL
40 0.1 4.0
Example of Friction Exposure
8
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
Challenging Expert Opinions:Every Fiber Does NOT Contribute
• Challenging Plaintiff’s Industrial Hygienist opinions is a different presentation
• Challenging Plaintiff’s Causation expert based on the lack of a reliable dose approximation
• And the lack of reliable epidemiology to support causation
9
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
Facts are the Key
• Plaintiff’s exposure evidence has to be well developed at deposition
• Duration of the work done
• Number of times the work was done
• Some explanation how the product was manipulated to create dust
• The sort of facts that allow for a dose estimate
10
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
Expert Challenge Wins and Losses
• In Re: Asbestos Litigation (Pennsylvania) September 24, 2008
• Rejected testimony based on the every exposure theory
• “claimed methodology simply does not exist or is so convoluted and inherently contradictory so as to defy any comprehension.”
11
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
Expert Challenge Wins and Losses
• Butler v. Union Carbide Corporation (GA)• Trial court decision, June 29, 2010); affirmed
June 15, 2011; cert denied October 17, 2011• Excluding the testimony of Dr. Maddox and
characterizing the “any exposure” theory as “at most, scientifically-grounded speculation: an untested and potentially untestable hypothesis.”
12
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
Expert Challenge Wins and Losses
• Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Bostic, 320 S.W.3d 588 (Tex. App. Dallas, August 26, 2010)
• Excluding “each and every exposure” testimony from Drs. Samuel Hammar, Arnold Brody and Richard Kronenberg.
13
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
Expert Challenge Wins and Losses
• Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Case No. 532-769, 19th Judicial District Court, East Baton Rouge, Louisiana (March 2, 2010).[1]
• Striking testimony from Dr. Eugene Mark, that “every fiber above background” or “every special exposure” to asbestos was a substantial contributing factor to the causation of mesothelioma.
•[1] Reversed and remanded by Louisiana Court of Appeals on October 4, 2011, appeal to Louisiana Supreme Court in progress.
14
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
• Smith v. Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Case No. 2-08-198-CV, Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, Fort Worth (February 25, 2010).
• Ruben v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC396559, Ruling On Motion In Limine By The Honorable Rita Miller (January 25, 2010).
• Daly v. Arvinmeritor, Inc., Case No. 07-19211, Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Court, Broward County, Florida (November 30, 2009).
• Lena K. Degrasse v. Anco Insulations Inc., et al., No. 07-12736, in the Civil Dist. Court for the Parish of Orleans, Div. G, Section 11, Judgment on Motion In Limine (June 11, 2009).
• In Re: Asbestos Litigation, Certain Asbestos Friction Cases Involving Chrysler LLC, in the Court of Common Pleas for the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, Control #084682, Findings, Memorandum and Order on Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Causation Expert Testimony that Relies Upon Novel Scientific Evidence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing, Tereshko, A.L (September 24, 2008)
• Free v. Ametek, Cause No. 07-2-0409109 SEA, Superior Court, King County, State of Washington, p. 5 (February 29, 2008).
15
HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON&YOUNGLLP
• Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. Stephens, 239 S.W.3d 304, 320-21 (Tex. App. 2007), reh’g overruled (Oct. 13, 2007), review denied (Feb. 22, 2008).
• In Re Asbestos, Cause No. 2004-3,964 (Tex. Dist. Ct. July 18, 2007), Letter Ruling.
• Gregg v. V-J. Auto Parts, Inc., 943 A.2d 216, 218, 223, 226-27 (Pa. 2007).• In re W.R. Grace & Co., 355 B.R. 462, 474, 478 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), leave to
appeal denied, No. 07-MC-0005 RLB, 01-1139, 2007 WL 1074094 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2007).
• In re Toxic Substance Cases, No. A.D. 03-319, 2006 WL 2404008 at *7-8 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Aug. 17, 2006); Basile v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No 11484 CD 2005 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Feb. 22, 2007) (order granting Caterpillar Inc.’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ expert testimony); Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 886 A.2d 240, 244 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005), appeal granted, 897 A.2d 460 (Pa. 2006).
• Brooks v. Stone Architecture, P.A., 934 So. 2d 350 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006).• In Re: Asbestos Litig., Cause No. 2004-03964, Letter Ruling, Davidson J., 11th
District Court; Harris County, Texas, January 20, 2005.• Bartel v. John Crane, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 2d 603, 611 (N.D. Ohio 2004), aff’d sub
nom.