Konrick v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al, No. 2:2014cv00524 - Document 70 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 36 Motion by defendants for Summary Judgment on plaintiff's claims. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 2/4/16. (jjs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Konrick v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al Doc. 70 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA NATALIE KONRICK CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 14-524 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, AND CHALMETTE REFINING, LLC SECTION: R ORD ER AN D REASON S Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation and Chalm ette Refining, LLC m ove for sum m ary judgm ent on plaintiff Natalie Konrick's claim s.1 Because plaintiff cannot prove causation, the Court grants defendants' m otion. I. BACKGROU N D Between J anuary and April 20 13, plaintiff worked as a security guard at the Exxon Chalm ette Refinery. Plaintiff, who was pregnant during her term of em ploym ent, was charged with various tasks, including checking crew m em bers' identification badges and bags as they entered the refinery. On April 9, 20 13, plaintiff experienced pelvic pressure, decreased fetal m ovem ent, and vaginal leakage and was adm itted to the hospital. The following day, 1 R. Doc. 36. Dockets.Justia.com plaintiff's doctor induced labor, and plaintiff delivered a stillborn child. Plaintiff sued Exxon Mobil Corporation and Chalmette Refining, LLC, alleging that the negligence of these com panies exposed her to benzene and hydrogen sulfide and that these substances caused her stillbirth delivery. In support, plaintiff proffered as an exposure expert forensic m eteorologist David Mitchell, whose expert report expanded the list of chem icals at issue. Using a m athem atical m odel, Dr. Mitchell estim ated the m axim um concentration of various substances in the air as a result of em issions within the refinery. Based on this analysis, Dr. Mitchell concluded that plaintiff was occupationally exposed to "significant" or "non-zero" levels of benzene and hydrogen sulfide, as well as toluene, ethyl-benzene, xylene, and other chem ical com pounds. To show general causation--that benzene, hydrogen sulfide, and the other substances identified in Dr. Mitchell's report can cause stillbirths-plaintiff offered the opinions of three m edical experts: Drs. Robert Harrison, Cynthia Bearer, and Laurel Waters. The Court excluded all three experts' general causation opinions as unreliable. Defendants m ove for sum m ary judgm ent, arguing that plaintiff's claim s m ust fail because she cannot prove general or specific causation without this expert testim ony. 2 II. LEGAL STAN D ARD Sum m ary judgm ent is warranted when "the m ovant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any m aterial fact and the m ovant is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322– 23 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 10 69, 10 75 (5th Cir. 1994). When assessing whether a dispute as to any m aterial fact exists, the Court considers "all of the evidence in the record but refrains from m aking credibility determ inations or weighing the evidence." Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationw ide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398– 399 (5th Cir. 20 0 8). The Court m ust draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonm oving party, but "unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth 'ultim ate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law' are insufficient to either support or defeat a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent." Galindo v. Precision Am . Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting 10 B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2738 (2d ed. 1983)). If the dispositive issue is one on which the m oving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the m oving party "m ust com e forward with evidence that would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial." Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally 's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264– 65 (5th Cir. 3 1991) (quotation m arks rem oved). The nonm oving party can then defeat the m otion by either countering with sufficient evidence of its own, or "showing that the m oving party's evidence is so sheer that it m ay not persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in favor of the m oving party." Id. at 1265. If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonm oving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the m oving party m ay satisfy its burden by m erely pointing out that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential elem ent of the nonm oving party's claim . See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The burden then shifts to the nonm oving party, who m ust, by subm itting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists. See id. at 324. The nonm ovant m ay not rest upon the pleadings but m ust identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue for trial. Id.; see also Little, 37 F.3d at 10 75 ("Rule 56 'm andates the entry of sum m ary judgm ent, after adequate tim e for discovery and upon m otion, against a party who fails to m ake a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an elem ent essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'") (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322). 4 III. D ISCU SSION In a toxic tort suit, the plaintiff m ust present adm issible expert testim ony to establish general causation and specific causation. Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 351 (5th Cir. 20 0 7) (quoting Merrell Dow . Pharm ., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 70 6, 714 (Tex. 1997)); see also Seam an v. Seacor Marine LLC, 326 F. App'x 721, 723 (5th Cir. 20 0 9) (per curiam ) (In a toxic tort suit, the plaintiff "cannot expect lay fact-finders to understand medical causation; expert testimony is thus required to established causation."). Evidence of specific causation is adm issible only if there is evidence of general causation. Knight, 482 F.3d at 351. Here, the Court excluded each of plaintiff's general causation opinions because it found them to be unreliable. Because plaintiff proffers no adm issible evidence on general causation, she m ay not present evidence on specific causation. Id. Because plaintiff cannot m ake the requisite showing on causation, the Court grants defendants' m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. 5 IV. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants' m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. 4th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ day of February, 20 16. ________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
