Challenging Expert Opinions: Every Fiber Does NOT Contribute

1

Edward M. Slaughter [email protected]

Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young

LLP Atlanta • Austin • Charleston • Dallas Los Angeles • St. Louis • San Francisco

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

2

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 • [email protected]

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

3

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

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

Changing Terminology

4 • 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 $$$

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

5

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

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

The Ideal Expert Challenge Scenerio

6 • 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

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

7

Exposure

Example of Friction Exposure

Exposure Duration (work-years) Asbestos Concentration (f/cc) Low High Cumulative Asbestos Exposure Dose (f/cc-years) 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

Exposure Estimate at Current OSHA PEL 40 0.001

0.1

0.021

0.21

4.0

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

8

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

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

Facts are the Key

9 • 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

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

Expert Challenge Wins and Losses

10 •

In Re: Asbestos Litigation

September 24, 2008 (Pennsylvania) • 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.”

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

11

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.”

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

12

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.

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

13

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.

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

14 • • • • • •

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).

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP

15 • • • • • • • •

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.

HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP