Sunnycalb v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 1:2010cv00192 - Document 71 (S.D. Ohio 2012)
Court Description: ORDER denying 38 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 8/13/12. (do1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sunnycalb v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Doc. 71 U N I T ED ST AT ES DI ST RI CT COU RT SOU T H ERN DI ST RI CT OF OH I O WEST ERN DI V I SI ON CH ARLES SU N N Y CALB, Pla int iff, v. Ca se N o. 1 :1 0 -c v-1 9 2 -H J W CSX T RAN SPORT AT I ON , I N C., De fe nda nt . ORDER Pe nding is t he de fe nda nt =s AM ot ion in Lim ine @ (doc . no. 3 8 ), w hic h pla int iff oppose s. T he Court he ld a Da ube rt he a ring on J une 1 2 , 2 0 1 2 , a t w hic h pla int iff=s e x pe rt w it ne ss Dr. Ba rry Le vy, M .D., a nd de fe nda nt =s la t e -ide nt ifie d e x pe rt w it ne ss Dr. La ura Gre e n, Ph.D., bot h t e st ifie d. T he pa rt ie s re que st e d, a nd w e re gra nt e d, le a ve t o file a ddit iona l brie fs, w hic h ha ve now be e n file d (doc . nos. 6 4 , 6 5 , 7 0 ). Also pe nding is pla int iff=s post -he a ring AM ot ion t o St rik e U ndisc lose d T e st im ony of Dr. Gre e n a nd t o Ex c lude Dr. Gre e n from T ria l, or Alt e rna t ive ly, For Le a ve t o Page 1 of 23 Dockets.Justia.com Produc e a Re but t a l Ex pe rt Wit ne ss@ (doc . no. 6 6 ), w hic h de fe nda nt oppose s in pa rt . H a ving fully c onside re d t he re c ord, inc luding t he m ot ions, brie fs, e x hibit s, t e st im ony, ora l a rgum e nt , a nd a pplic a ble a ut horit y, t he Court w ill de ny t he de fe nda nt =s m ot ion in lim ine , gra nt in pa rt a nd de ny in pa rt t he pla int iff=s m ot ion t o st rik e Dr. Gre e n’s he a ring t e st im ony a nd ba r he r t ria l t e st im ony, a nd gra nt pla int iff’s re que st for le a ve t o produc e a re but t a l w it ne ss, for t he follow ing re a sons: I. Ba c k ground a nd Proc e dura l H ist ory On April 2 , 2 0 0 7 , Cha rle s Sunnyc a lb (Apla int iff@) w a s w ork ing a s a n e ngine e r for CSX T ra nsport a t ion I nc . (Ade fe nda nt @ or ACSX @) a nd w a s ope ra t ing a loc om ot ive in Ohio. T he loc om ot ive w a s e quippe d w it h a M ic rophor t oile t w it h a Ac hlorina t or@ t o t re a t w a st e t ha t ha s be e n flushe d int o a holding t a nk . T he c hlorina t or c ont a ins c hlorine pe lle t s t ha t dissolve in t he w a st e liquid. T he M a t e ria l Sa fe t y Da t a She e t (AM SDS@) for t he a c t ive c he m ic a l in t he c hlorine pe lle t s indic a t e s it is A[c ]orrosive t o e ye s, sk in, a nd m uc ous m e m bra ne s” a nd “[h]a rm ful by inha la t ion a nd if sw a llow e d@ (doc . no. 4 2 -4 a t 1 ). For inha la t ion, t he M SDS provide s t ha t t he c he m ic a l is Page 2 of 23 Airrit a t ing t o t he nose , m out h, t hroa t , a nd lungs . . . c a n re sult in short ne ss of bre a t h, w he e zing, c hok ing, c he st pa in, a nd im pa irm e nt of lung func t ion@ I d. For inge st ion, t he M SDS provide s t ha t Airrit a t ion . . . c a n oc c ur t o t he e nt ire ga st roint e st ina l t ra c t . . . c ha ra c t e rize d by na use a @ I d. For e ye c ont a c t , t he c he m ic a l c a n c a use Ase ve re irrit a t ion.@ T he M SDS e x pla ins t ha t At his produc t is c orrosive t o a ll t issue s c ont a c t e d a nd upon inha la t ion, m a y c a use irrit a t ion t o m uc ous m e m bra ne s a nd re spira t ory t ra c t .@ I d. T he M SDS furt he r indic a t e s t ha t Aa ft e r spilla ge /le a k a ge , ha za rdous c onc e nt ra t ions in a ir m a y be found in loc a l spill a re a a nd im m e dia t e ly dow nw ind@ a nd c a ut ions Ado not put w a t e r on t his produc t a s a ga s e volut ion m a y oc c ur.@ I d. Whe n pla int iff boa rde d t he loc om ot ive , he not ic e d a n odor (de sc ribe d a s sm e lling lik e “w e t rot t ing st e e l@ or lik e a “dum pst e r”) a nd re port e d t his t o a ra ilroa d m a int e na nc e e m ploye e , w ho spra ye d a n e nzym e solut ion in t he t oile t a re a a nd on t he surrounding floor. Aft e r t he t ra in de pa rt e d, pla int iff not ic e d t he sm e ll ge t t ing w orse ne a r H a m ilt on a nd Ca rlisle , Ohio, a nd t ha t it w a s m a k ing him c ough. Whe n t he t ra in st oppe d, pla int iff w e nt dow n int o t he t oile t a re a in orde r t o use t he Page 3 of 23 t oile t . H e not ic e d t ha t it s w a t e r t a nk w a s c ra c k e d a nd t ha t w a t e r ha d le a k e d ont o t he floor, w hic h w a s c orrode d a nd ha d hole s in it . 1 Pla int iff indic a t e s t ha t w he n he use d t he t oile t , a bla st of a ir ble w up t hrough t he c orrode d floor a nd ble w filt hy w a t e r int o his e ye s a nd m out h. As t he t ra in t he n be ga n t o m ove , a ir c a m e up t hrough t he hole s in t he floor a nd ble w Am ist @ a round t he int e rior of t he c a b. Pla int iff de ve lope d a ba d c ough, burning e ye s, a nd fe lt Ana use a t e d@ (doc . no. 4 2 -2 at 1, AEm ploye e =s I nc ide nt Re port @). Pla int iff’s sym pt om s pe rsist e d a nd he sought m e dic a l t re a t m e nt from his physic ia n, Dr. Sha k k ot a i. H e w a s re fe rre d t o pulm ona ry spe c ia list , Dr. Sunil Da m a , M .D., w ho e x a m ine d pla int iff, c onduc t e d va rious dia gnost ic t e st s, a nd subse que nt ly dia gnose d pla int iff w it h re a c t ive a irw a y dysfunc t ion syndrom e (ARADS,@ de sc ribe d a s Ape rsist e nt a st hm a syndrom e a ft e r high le ve l irrit a nt e x posure s@). T his dia gnosis w a s la t e r c onfirm e d by t he re sult s of a m e t ha c holine c ha lle nge t e st . 1 T he subse que nt ALoc om ot ive Work Re port @ re fle c t s t ha t t he t oile t t a nk w a s Abust e d le a k ing out on t he floor,@ a nd t he ACSX I nspe c t ion Re port @ indic a t e s Aholding t a nk ba d. T oile t room floor rust e d@ (doc . no. 4 2 , Ex s. E, F). Alt hough CSX t he re a ft e r dispose d of t he t a nk , t he fa c t t ha t it w a s “bust e d” a nd le a k ing is not disput e d. Page 4 of 23 On M a rc h 2 6 , 2 0 1 0 , pla int iff file d t his la w suit a ga inst de fe nda nt CSX pursua nt t o t he Fe de ra l Em ploye rs= Lia bilit y Ac t (AFELA@) 4 5 U .S.C. ' 5 1 e t se q., for t he injurie s he sust a ine d in t his inc ide nt . CSK c onc e de s t ha t pla int iff ha s t he c ondit ion RADS, but disput e s w he t he r his c he m ic a l e x posure in t his inc ide nt c a use d it . For t he purpose of proving c a usa t ion of his injurie s, pla int iff t im e ly disc lose d t ha t he int e nds t o int roduc e at t ria l t he opinions a nd t e st im ony of his t re a t ing pulm onologist Dr. Sunil Da m a , M .D., a nd his re t a ine d e x pe rt w it ne ss Dr. Ba rry Le vy, M .D. De fe nda nt CSX t im e ly disc lose d it s ow n re t a ine d e x pe rt , pulm onologist Dr. J a m e s Loc k e y, M .D. Short ly be fore t he sc he dule d t ria l da t e in M a rc h 2 0 1 2 , CSX c ha lle nge d t he opinions of Drs. Da m a a nd Le vy a nd sought t o e x c lude t he ir t e st im ony (doc . no. 3 8 ). T he Court sc he dule d a Da ube rt he a ring. M e a nw hile , in light of a sudde n out -of-st a t e job int e rvie w offe re d t o pla int iff by CSX , pla int iff re que st e d (a nd w as gra nt e d) a t ria l c ont inua nc e . T ria l w a s re sc he dule d for August 2 7 , 2 0 1 2 . CSX t he n sought le a ve t o int roduc e t he opinion of a la t e -ide nt ifie d se c ond e x pe rt w it ne ss, t ox ic ologist Dr. La ura Gre e n, Ph.D. (doc . no. 4 4 ). Page 5 of 23 Pla int iff m ove d t o e x c lude Dr. Gre e n=s re port a nd t e st im ony (doc . no. 4 7 ). T his Court a llow e d Dr. Gre e n t o t e st ify a t t he Da ube rt he a ring, subje c t t o a fina nc ia l sa nc t ion upon de fe nda nt for it s la t e ide nt ific a t ion (doc . no. 5 4 AOrde r of M a y 2 5 , 2 0 1 2 "). T he Court re se rve d a ny de c ision a s t o w he t he r Dr. Gre e n w ould be a llow e d t o t e st ify a t t ria l. At t he he a ring, t he pa rt ie s re que st e d, a nd w e re gra nt e d pe rm ission t o file a ddit iona l brie fs (doc . nos. 6 4 , 6 5 , 7 0 ). Pla int iff file d a post -he a ring m ot ion t o st rik e Dr. Gre e n=s he a ring t e st im ony a nd ba r he r from t e st ifying a t t ria l, a nd a lt e rna t ive ly, for pe rm ission t o produc e a re but t a l e x pe rt w it ne ss a t t ria l (doc . no. 6 6 ). De fe nda nt CSX oppose s t he m ot ion, e x c e pt a s t o pla int iff=s a lt e rna t ive re que st for pe rm ission t o produc e a re but t a l w it ne ss (doc . no. 6 9 ). T he se m a t t e rs a re fully brie fe d a nd ripe for c onside ra t ion. II. I ssue s Pre se nt e d T he m a in issue s be fore t his Court a re : 1 ) w he t he r t he c a usa t ion opinions of pla int iff=s t w o e x pe rt s, Dr. Ba rry Le vy, M .D., a nd t re a t ing pulm onologist Dr. Sunil Da m a , M .D., pa ss sc rut iny unde r Da ube rt a nd m a y be int roduc e d a t t ria l; 2 ) w he t he r a ll or pa rt of t he he a ring Page 6 of 23 t e st im ony of CSX =s la t e -ide nt ifie d e x pe rt w it ne ss, Dr. La ura Gre e n, Ph.D., should be st ric k e n; 3 ) w he t he r Dr. Gre e n m a y t e st ify a t t ria l; a nd 4 ) w he t he r pla int iff m a y produc e a re but t a l w it ne ss. III. Disc ussion A. Re le va nt La w FELA provide s for lia bilit y w he n a n injury re sult s “in w hole or in pa rt ” from t he ne glige nc e of t he e m ploye r. 4 5 U .S.C. § 5 1 , e t se q.; Roge rs v. M issouri Pa c ific Ra ilroa d Co., 3 5 2 U .S. 5 0 0 , 5 0 6 (1 9 5 7 ) (“U nde r t his st a t ut e t he t e st of a jury c a se is sim ply w he t he r t he proofs just ify w it h re a son t he c onc lusion t ha t e m ploye r ne glige nc e pla ye d a ny pa rt , e ve n t he slight e st , in produc ing t he injury or de a t h for w hic h da m a ge s a re sought ”); Da ughe nba ugh v. Be t hle he m St e e l Corp., 8 9 1 F.2 d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 4 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 8 9 ) (sa m e ). A pla int iff m ust show a c a usa l c onne c t ion be t w e e n t he de fe nda nt 's ne glige nc e a nd pla int iff’s injurie s. M a yhe w v. Be ll S.S. Co., 9 1 7 F.2 d 9 6 1 , 9 6 3 -6 4 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 0 ). I n c he m ic a l e x posure s c a se s (i.e . “t ox ic t ort s”), a pla int iff m ust show t ha t t he c he m ic a l e x posure c ould c a use a pa rt ic ula r t ype of injury (ge ne ra l c a usa t ion) a nd a c t ua lly did Page 7 of 23 c a use pla int iff’s ow n injury (spe c ific c a usa t ion). Se e Be st v. Low e 's H om e Ce nt e rs, I nc ., 5 6 3 F.3 d 1 7 1 , 1 8 1 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ); Pluc k v. BP Oil Pipe line Co., 6 4 0 F.3 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 6 -7 7 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 1 ). B. Whe t he r t he Pla int iff=s Ex pe rt Wit ne ss Opinions a re Adm issible unde r Rule 7 0 2 a nd Da ube rt Rule 7 0 2 of t he Fe de ra l Rule of Evide nc e provide s t ha t : I f sc ie nt ific , t e c hnic a l, or ot he r spe c ia lize d k now le dge w ill a ssist t he t rie r of fa c t t o . . . de t e rm ine a fa c t in issue , a w it ne ss qua lifie d a s a n e x pe rt by k now le dge , sk ill, e x pe rie nc e , t ra ining, or e duc a t ion, m a y t e st ify t he re t o in t he form of a n opinion or ot he rw ise , if (1 ) t he t e st im ony is ba se d upon suffic ie nt fa c t s or da t a , (2 ) t he t e st im ony is t he produc t of re lia ble princ iple s a nd m e t hods, a nd (3 ) t he w it ne ss ha s a pplie d t he princ iple s a nd m e t hods re lia bly t o t he fa c t s of t he c a se . Fe d.R.Evid. 7 0 2 . Dist ric t c ourt s ha ve a Aga t e k e e ping role @ in sc re e ning t he use of e x pe rt t e st im ony, a nd t ria l judge s ha ve disc re t ion t o de t e rm ine w he t he r suc h t e st im ony is a dm issible , ba se d on w he t he r it is bot h re le va nt a nd re lia ble . Da ube rt v. M e rre ll Dow Pha rm ., I nc ., 5 0 9 U .S. 5 7 9 , 5 8 9 -5 9 7 (1 9 9 3 ); K um ho T ire Co., Lt d. v. Ca rm ic ha e l, 5 2 6 U .S. 1 3 7 , 1 4 7 (1 9 9 9 ); N e w e ll Rubbe rm a id, I nc . v. T he Ra ym ond Corp., 6 7 6 F.3 d Page 8 of 23 5 2 1 , 5 2 7 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 2 ). Court s ha ve Abroa d la t it ude @ in m a k ing t his de t e rm ina t ion. K um ho, 5 2 6 U .S. a t 1 3 8 . T he inquiry is “a fle x ible one ,” a nd “[t ]he foc us . . . m ust be sole ly on princ iple s a nd m e t hodology, not on t he c onc lusions t he y ge ne ra t e .” Da ube rt , 5 0 9 U .S. a t 5 9 4 –9 5 . Re lia bilit y is de t e rm ine d by a sse ssing Aw he t he r t he re a soning or m e t hodology unde rlying t he t e st im ony is sc ie nt ific a lly va lid,@ w he re a s re le va nc e de pe nds upon Aw he t he r [t ha t ] re a soning or m e t hodology prope rly c a n be a pplie d t o t he fa c t s in issue .@ I d. a t 5 9 2 -5 9 3 . "[T ]he ga t e k e e ping inquiry m ust be t ie d t o t he fa c t s of a pa rt ic ula r c a se , de pe nding on t he na t ure of t he issue , t he e x pe rt 's pa rt ic ula r e x pe rt ise , a nd t he subje c t of his t e st im ony." K um ho, 5 2 6 U .S. a t 1 5 0 . I n it s m ot ion in lim ine , CSX a rgue s t ha t “pla int iff ha s not offe re d proof t ha t t he c hlorine a lle ge dly pre se nt in t he loc om ot ive t oile t w a s of suc h a qua nt it y a nd c onc e nt ra t ion so a s t o be a ble t o c a use RADS” (doc . no. 3 8 a t 5 -6 ). CSX a rgue s t ha t be c a use t he opinions of pla int iff’s e x pe rt s a re not ba se d on a pre c ise ly-m e a sure d le ve l of pla int iff=s c he m ic a l e x posure , t he y la c k At he prope r fa c t ua l founda t ion@ a nd a re Aunre lia ble a nd ina dm issible .@ CSX a rgue s t ha t a bse nt a de t e rm ina t ion Page 9 of 23 of t he pla int iff’s le ve l of c he m ic a l e x posure , Dr. Da m a ’s “spe c ific c a usa t ion opinion fa ils” a nd “t he t e st im ony of ge ne ra l c a usa t ion by Dr. Le vy is irre le va nt ” (I d. a t 6 ). I n m a k ing t his a rgum e nt , CSX re lie s he a vily on Pluc k v. BP Oil Pipe line Co., 6 4 0 F.3 d 6 7 1 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 1 ), for t he proposit ion t ha t t he le ve l of c he m ic a l e x posure m ust first be a sc e rt a ine d be fore offe ring a c a usa t ion opinion. Suc h c a se is re a dily dist inguisha ble on it s fa c t s, a nd CSX =s re lia nc e on suc h c a se is m ispla c e d. Pluc k ha d de ve lope d non-H odgk ins lym phom a a ft e r long-t e rm e x posure (a pprox im a t e ly nine ye a rs) t o a re la t ive ly low le ve l of be nze ne in w e ll w a t e r c ont a m ina t e d by a le a k ing BP pipe line . T he pla int iff’s e x pe rt ha d indic a t e d t ha t pla int iff’s e x posure w a s Agre a t e r t ha n ba c k ground@ a nd t ha t t he re w a s “no sa fe le ve l for be nze ne in t e rm s of c a using c a nc e r.” At de posit ion, Pluc k ’s e x pe rt c onc e de d t ha t pla int iff ha d be e n e x pose d t o ot he r sourc e s of be nze ne , suc h a s solve nt s a nd he r e x t e nsive sm ok ing ha bit . T he de fe nda nt point e d out t ha t Pluc k ’s lym phom a m a y ha ve be e n a t t ribut a ble t o ot he r e nvironm e nt a l fa c t ors a nd t ha t t he le ve ls of be nze ne in t he w e ll ne ve r e x c e e de d Page 10 of 23 t he m a x im um pe rm issible c ont a m ina nt le ve l of 5 ppb de signa t e d by t he EPA. U nde r t hose c irc um st a nc e s, t he c ourt found t ha t t he e x pe rt 's opinion t ha t be nze ne from t he c ont a m ina t e d w e ll ha d c a use d Pluc k ’s lym phom a w a s not suffic ie nt ly “re lia ble ” for purpose s of Rule 7 0 2 a nd Da ube rt . T he Court of Appe a ls for t he Six t h Circ uit a ffirm e d, obse rving t ha t Pluc k ’s physic ia n ha d not "rule d out " ot he r c a use s of pla int iff’s illne ss using t he st a nda rd diffe re nt ia l dia gnosis m e t hod. U nlik e Pluc k v. BP Oil, w hic h involve d m e a sura ble long-t e rm low -le ve l e nvironm e nt a l e x posure t o a c he m ic a l t ha t w a s a lso pre se nt from ot he r sourc e s, t he pre se nt c a se involve s a sudde n c he m ic a l e x posure from a single sourc e re sult ing in im m e dia t e sym pt om s. Pla int iff ha d no prior dia gnosis of a st hm a . H is c he m ic a l e x posure w a s une x pe c t e d a nd c ould not be m e a sure d a ft e r-t he -fa c t , a s it oc c urre d sudde nly in a sit ua t ion w he re t he le ve l of t ha t c he m ic a l is not ordina rily m onit ore d a nd w he re a ny c hlorine from t he pe lle t s w ould quic k ly dispe rse , m a k ing m e a sure m e nt im possible . I n suc h c irc um st a nc e s, t his c irc uit a nd ot he rs ha ve he ld t ha t e vide nc e of t he pre c ise le ve l of c he m ic a l e x posure is not ne c e ssa ry for Page 11 of 23 a n e x pe rt t o re lia bly indic a t e t ha t t he sudde n e x posure c a use d a pla int iff’s illne ss. Se e Be st v. Low e ’s H om e Ce nt e rs, I nc ., 5 6 3 F.3 d 1 7 1 , 1 7 8 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ); H a rdym a n v. N orfolk & We st e rn Ry. Co., 2 4 3 F.3 d 2 5 5 , 2 6 0 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 0 ); Ga ss v. M a rriot t H ot e l Se rvic e s, 5 5 8 F.3 d 4 1 9 , 4 3 4 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ); We st be rry v. Gisla ve d Gum m i AB, 1 7 8 F.3 d 2 5 7 , 2 6 3 (4 t h Cir. 1 9 9 9 ); H e lle r v. Sha w I ndust rie s, I nc ., 1 6 7 F.3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 4 (3 rd Cir. 1 9 9 9 ). Pla int iff c it e s num e rous c a se s for t his (doc . no. 4 2 a t 6 -9 ), inc luding c a se s spe c ific a lly involving t he c ondit ion RADS. Se e , e .g., N offsinge r v. V a lspa r Corp., Slip Opinion, 2 0 1 2 WL 8 9 5 4 9 6 , * 1 -2 (N .D.I ll. ) (t ruc k drive r de ve lope d t he c ondit ion RADS a ft e r bre a t hing fum e s from le a k ing 5 5 -ga llon drum s of Dyna m prim e pa int , a solve nt -ba se d c oa t ing). T he de c ision by t he Six t h Circ uit Court of Appe a ls in t he Be st c a se is e spe c ia lly pe rt ine nt . T he re , a n unk now n qua nt it y of pool c he m ic a ls in a punc t ure d c ont a ine r spla she d ont o pla int iff=s fa c e . Be st , 5 6 3 a t 1 7 6 . H e suffe re d irrit a t ion a nd burning of his sk in, na sa l pa ssa ge s, a nd m out h, dizzine ss, a nd short ne ss of bre a t h. H e e ve nt ua lly lost his se nse of sm e ll c om ple t e ly. H is physic ia n c onduc t e d a t horough diffe re nt ia l dia gnosis in w hic h he “rule d in” va rious possible c a use s of pla int iff’s c ondit ion a nd t he n re lia bly “rule d out ” t he se c a use s. H e re vie w e d t he Page 12 of 23 M SDS she e t for t he a c t ive ingre die nt s in t he produc t , w hic h indic a t e d “ha rm ful if inha le d.” Alt hough Be st ’s physic ia n c ould not de t e rm ine t he pre c ise le ve l of c he m ic a l e x posure , he c ould re lia bly form t he opinion t ha t t he inha la t ion of t he c he m ic a l ha d c a use d his pa t ie nt t o lose his se nse of sm e ll, ba se d on t he sudde n c he m ic a l e x posure a nd im m e dia t e onse t of sym pt om s, a nd give n t ha t t he physic ia n ha d c a re fully c onside re d a nd rule d out ot he r possible c a use s. Be st , 5 6 3 a t 1 7 6 . T he Six t h Circ uit Court of Appe a ls re ve rse d t he t ria l c ourt ’s de c ision t o e x c lude t he physic ia n’s c a usa t ion opinion. Lik e t he physic ia n in Be st , Drs. Da m a a nd Le vy bot h use d t he w e ll-a c c e pt e d m e t hod of diffe re nt ia l dia gnosis. Diffe re nt ia l dia gnosis is “a st a nda rd sc ie nt ific t e c hnique of ide nt ifying t he c a use of a m e dic a l proble m by e lim ina t ing t he lik e ly c a use s unt il t he m ost proba ble one is isola t e d.” Pluc k , 6 4 0 F.3 d a t 6 7 1 .AT he re is not hing c ont rove rsia l a bout t ha t m e t hodology.@ M ye rs v. I llinois Ce nt ra l R. Co., 6 2 9 F.3 d 6 3 9 , 6 7 4 (7 t h Cir. 2 0 1 0 ). Fe de ra l c ourt s long ha ve re c ognize d t his a s a n a ppropria t e m e t hod for m a k ing a de t e rm ina t ion of c a usa t ion of a pe rson’s illne ss. Gla se r v. T hom pson M e d. Co., 3 2 F.3 d 9 6 9 , 9 7 7 (6 t h Cir. Page 13 of 23 1 9 9 4 ) (re c ognizing t he a dm issibilit y of prope rly de ve lope d diffe re nt ia l dia gnosis opinions); H a rdym a n, 2 4 3 F.3 d a t 2 6 0 B6 1 . “M a ny c ourt s, inc luding our ow n, a llow e x pe rt s t o e m ploy a rule -in/rule -out re a soning proc e ss for e t iology a s w e ll a s dia gnosis.” T a m ra z v. Linc oln Ele c . Co., 6 2 0 F.3 d 6 6 5 , 6 7 3 -7 4 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 0 ), c e rt . de nie d, 1 3 1 S.Ct . 2 4 5 4 (2 0 1 1 ). “T his c irc uit ha s long a c c e pt e d t his k ind of t e st im ony. I d. T he c a se la w ha s use d t he t e rm Adiffe re nt ia l dia gnosis@ broa dly t o inc lude Adiffe re nt ia l e t iology.@ I d.; H a rdym a n, 2 4 3 F.3 d a t 2 5 9 n. 2 ; English Dic t iona ry 4 2 7 (2 d e d.1 9 8 9 ) (de fining “e t iology” a s t he st udy of c a usa t ion). Fe de ra l c ourt s ha ve broa dly use d t he t e rm diffe re nt ia l dia gnosis t o inc lude diffe re nt ia l e t iology a nd ha ve re c ognize d t his a s a n a ppropria t e m e t hod of de t e rm ining c a usa t ion. Be st , 5 6 3 F.3 d a t 1 7 8 -7 9 ; H a rdym a n, 2 4 3 F.3 d a t 2 6 0 B6 7 ; Gla se r, 3 2 F.3 d a t 9 7 7 . T he physic ia n c onside rs a ll re le va nt pot e nt ia l c a use s of t he sym pt om s a nd t he n e lim ina t e s a lt e rna t ive c a use s ba se d on a physic a l e x a m ina t ion, c linic a l t e st s, a nd a t horough c a se hist ory.@ H a rdym a n, 2 4 3 F.3 d a t 2 6 0 (quot ing Fe de ra l J udic ia l Ce nt e r, Re fe re nc e M a nua l on Sc ie nt ific Evide nc e 2 1 4 (1 9 9 4 )); Be st , 5 6 3 a t 1 7 9 . Court s should a sk : (1 ) Page 14 of 23 Did t he e x pe rt m a k e a n a c c ura t e dia gnosis of t he na t ure of t he dise a se ? (2 ) Did t he e x pe rt re lia bly rule in t he possible c a use s of it ? (3 ) Did t he e x pe rt re lia bly rule out t he re je c t e d c a use s? T a m ra z, 6 2 0 F.3 d a t 6 7 3 -7 4 ; Be st , 5 6 3 F.3 d a t 1 7 9 . I n t he pre se nt c a se , w it h re spe c t t o ge ne ra l c a usa t ion, pla int iff=s e x pe rt , Dr. Ba rry Le vy, M .D., re vie w e d a t re m e ndous a m ount of re le va nt m e dic a l a nd sc ie nt ific lit e ra t ure pe rt a ining t o RADS a nd re la t e d c ondit ions, inc luding t he M SDS spe c ific a t ion she e t t ha t w a rns a bout bre a t hing proble m s a nd lung da m a ge , a nd c onc lude d t ha t e x posure t o a suffic ie nt a m ount of c hlorine can c a use ARADS.@ N ot a bly, t he de fe nda nt ’s ow n e x pe rt s, pulm onologist Dr. J a m e s Loc k e y, M .D., a nd t ox ic ologist Dr. La ura Gre e n Ph.D., a lso bot h a gre e t ha t e x posure t o c hlorine in suffic ie nt qua nt it y c a n c a use RADS (Loc k e y De p. a t 5 1 ; Gre e n De p. a t 4 2 ; Gre e n Re port , doc . no. 4 7 -1 a t & 2 0 ). T he re quire m e nt of ge ne ra l c a usa t ion a s a n a spe c t of a sc ie nt ific a lly-re lia ble c a usa t ion opinion is t he k e y point of Da ube rt . Ge ne ra l Ele c . Co. v. J oine r, 5 2 2 U .S. 1 3 6 , 1 4 6 (1 9 9 7 ). Alt hough CSX a rgue s t ha t t he re is Ano e vide nc e @ t ha t t he c hlorine Page 15 of 23 w a s of suffic ie nt qua nt it y a nd c onc e nt ra t ion t o c a use t he c ondit ion of RADS, t he c a se la w doe s not re quire a de t e rm ina t ion of t he pre c ise le ve l of e x posure in sudde n a c c ide nt sit ua t ions. M ore ove r, t he e vide nc e re fle c t s t ha t t he t ra in=s t oile t syst e m ha d a c hlorina t or, t ha t t he t oile t syst e m w a s le a k ing, t ha t t he liquid w a s spra ye d int o pla int iff=s fa c e a nd “m ist e d” in t he c a bin a ir, t ha t t he M SDS she e t spe c ific a lly w a rns t ha t e x posure t o t he a c t ive c he m ic a ls in t he c hlorina t or pe lle t s c a n c a use bre a t hing diffic ult ie s a nd lung da m a ge , a nd t ha t pla int iff – w ho did not ha ve a hist ory of a st hm a -- im m e dia t e ly de ve lope d t he sym pt om s of RADS a ft e r t he sudde n e x posure in t he inc ide nt a t issue . T he m e dic a l doc um e nt a t ion a nd de posit ion t e st im ony re fle c t t ha t Dr. Da m a physic a lly e x a m ine d pla int iff a nd c onduc t e d va rious dia gnost ic t e st s be fore de t e rm ining t ha t pla int iff suffe re d from ARADS@ due t o his w ork pla c e c he m ic a l e x posure . For e x a m ple , Dr. Da m a pe rform e d a bronc hosc opy w hic h re ve a le d t ha t pla int iff=s lungs w e re re d-c olore d, indic a t ing infla m m a t ion of t he lung t issue (Da m a De p. a t 2 3 -2 4 ). H e orde re d c ult ure s t a k e n in orde r t o rule out ba c t e ria l or vira l infe c t ion a s a c a use of t he infla m m a t ion. Dr. Da m a a lso pe rform e d a Page 16 of 23 c a rdia c w ork -up a nd orde re d a CT sc a n for pla int iff. I d. a t 2 4 -2 6 . Ba se d on t he re sult s of a ll t he se t e st s a nd proc e dure s, Dr. Da m a rule d out va rious possible c a use s of pla int iff=s sym pt om s, inc luding ordina ry a st hm a , he a rt fa ilure , re flux , a nd ra re dise a se s of t he lung t ha t c a n c a use w he e zing. I d. a t 5 2 -5 3 . Give n st rong t e m pora l re la t ion (i.e ., im m e dia t e sym pt om s a ft e r a sudde n c he m ic a l e x posure ) a nd give n t ha t Dr. Da m a rule d out ot he r possible c a use s of pla int iff’s sym pt om s, Dr. Da m a ’s m e t hodology pa sse s m ust e r unde r Da ube rt . Sim ila rly, pla int iff’s e x pe rt w it ne ss Dr. Ba rry Le vy, M .D., re vie w e d a n e norm ous a m ount of re le va nt inform a t ion, inc luding t he pla int iff’s c a se file (inc luding t he M SDS she e t ), pla int iff’s m e dic a l re c ords dia gnost ic t e st re sult s, a nd t he sc ie nt ific lit e ra t ure a nd m e dic a l st udie s on RADS a nd re la t e d a st hm a t ic c ondit ions. Lik e Dr. Da m a , he use d t he a c c e pt e d m e t hod of “diffe re nt ia l dia gnosis a nd/or e t iology” t o rule in a ll possible c a use s of pla int iff=s sym pt om s a nd t he n syst e m a t ic a lly rule out va rious c a use s ba se d on t he dia gnost ic t e st re sult s a nd ot he r da t a . Pla int iff ha s fully de sc ribe d Dr. Le vy’s m e t hodology a t le ngt h (doc . no. 7 0 a t 2 -6 ). Give n t he pla int iff’s hist ory of a re port e d sudde n e x posure t o Page 17 of 23 c he m ic a l inha la t ion a nd/or liquid irrit a nt , his c lust e r of sym pt om s (inc luding bre a t hing diffic ult ie s, na use a , a nd e ye irrit a t ion), a nd t he re sult s of va rious dia gnost ic t e st s, Dr. Le vy c onc lude d t ha t pla int iff w a s suffe ring from ARADS@ c a use d by his w ork pla c e c he m ic a l e x posure . Drs. Da m a a nd Le vy ha ve bot h c onc lude d t ha t pla int iff=s w ork pla c e e x posure t o c he m ic a ls in t he liquid a nd/or va por (“m ist ”) from t he le a k ing t oile t syst e m c a use d pla int iff t o de ve lop RADS. T he se opinions a re pre m ise d on diffe re nt ia l dia gnosis a nd/or e t iology, a s w e ll a s a st rong t e m pora l re la t ionship be t w e e n t he loc om ot ive inc ide nt a nd t he onse t of pla int iff’s sym pt om s. T he opinions of Drs. Da m a a nd Le vy involve d t horough a nd inde pe nde nt a na lysis of pla int iff’s sym pt om s, t he possible c a use s, t he re sult s of va rious dia gnost ic t e st s, a nd t he m ost lik e ly e x pla na t ion for his illne ss. Alt hough CSX c rit ic ize s a spe c t s of t he ir opinions, t he ir m e t hodology sa t isfie s t he re quire m e nt s of Da ube rt . Any a lle ge d w e a k ne sse s in t he e x pe rt s’ m e t hodology w ill a ffe c t t he w e ight t ha t suc h opinions a re give n a t t ria l, but not t he ir t hre shold a dm issibilit y. Be st , 5 6 3 F.3 d a t 1 8 2 . T he doc t ors’ opinions w ill prope rly be subje c t t o c ross-e x a m ina t ion a t t ria l. Page 18 of 23 C. Whe t he r t he De fe nda nt =s La t e -I de nt ifie d Ex pe rt Wit ne ss Dr. Gre e n M a y T e st ify a t T ria l I n it s prior Orde r, t his Court a llow e d t he de fe nda nt =s la t e -ide nt ifie d w it ne ss, Dr. La ura Gre e n,. Ph.D., t o t e st ify a t t he Da ube rt he a ring, subje c t t o a n a ppropria t e sa nc t ion of re sult ing c ost s for t he e x t ra disc ove ry e x pe nse s inc urre d by pla int iff. At t he Da ube rt he a ring, Dr. Gre e n=s t e st im ony la rge ly pe rt a ine d t o Dr. Le vy=s m e t hodology a nd w a s pre se nt e d in a n e ffort t o c ha lle nge Dr. Le vy=s e x pe rt opinion on c a usa t ion. I n it s prior Orde r, t his Court re se rve d de c ision a s t o w he t he r Dr. Gre e n w ould be pe rm it t e d t o t e st ify a t t ria l. T he Court now de c ide s t his re m a ining que st ion a nd c onc lude s t ha t Dr. Gre e n m a y t e st ify a t t ria l, subje c t t o t he re st ric t ion t ha t he r t e st im ony m ust be lim it e d t o m a t t e rs w it hin he r e x pe rt ise , i.e . ge ne ra l c a usa t ion, ra t he r t ha n a c t ua l dia gnosis of a pa t ie nt ’s illne ss. While Dr. Gre e n is highly t ra ine d a s a t ox ic ologist , pla int iff c orre c t ly point s out t ha t she is not a physic ia n a nd a dm it t e dly m a y not dia gnose a pa t ie nt ’s illne ss. A[A] dist ric t c ourt judge a sk e d t o a dm it sc ie nt ific e vide nc e m ust de t e rm ine w he t he r t he e vide nc e is ge nuine ly sc ie nt ific , a s dist inc t from Page 19 of 23 be ing . . . spe c ula t ion offe re d by a ge nuine sc ie nt ist .@ T a m ra z, 6 2 0 F.3 d a t 6 7 7 (quot ing Rose n v. Ciba -Ge igy Corp., 7 8 F.3 d 3 1 6 , 3 1 8 (7 t h Cir. 1 9 9 6 )); se e a lso, Coole y v. Linc oln Ele c . Co., 6 9 3 F.Supp.2 d 7 6 7 , 7 7 3 (N .D.Ohio 2 0 1 0 ) (e x c luding t e st im ony of de fe nse e x pe rt t ox ic ologist in c a se involving e m ploye e s injure d by inha ling t ox ic m a nga ne se fum e s). Court s vie w w it h spe c ia l c a ut ion e x pe rt t e st im ony pre pa re d sole ly for purpose s of lit iga t ion, ra t he r t ha n flow ing from a n e x pe rt 's line of sc ie nt ific or t e c hnic a l w ork . I n re Are dia a nd Z om e t a Prods. Lia bilit y Lit ig., 2 0 1 2 WL 2 0 1 6 2 4 9 , * 7 (6 t h Cir. (T e nn.)) (c it ing J ohnson v. M a nit ow oc Boom T ruc k s, I nc ., 4 8 4 F.3 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 4 -3 5 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 7 ). While Dr. Gre e n, ba se d on he r t ra ining a nd e duc a t ion, c ould prope rly indic a t e in he r re port t ha t e x posure t o c hlorine in suffic ie nt qua nt it y c a n c a use RADS (doc . no. 4 7 -1 a t & 2 0 ), ot he r pa rt s of he r re port w e re spe c ula t ive a nd ve nt ure d int o subje c t s upon w hic h she w a s not qua lifie d t o re nde r a n opinion, i.e . spe c ific c a usa t ion (se e , e .g., & 2 2 spe c ula t ing t ha t pla int iff Am a y ha ve be e n c om ing dow n w it h influe nza @). At t he he a ring, de fe nse c ounse l e lic it e d t e st im ony from Dr. Gre e n a bout pla int iff’s RADS dia gnosis a nd inquire d a bout re c ords indic a t ing t ha t Page 20 of 23 pla int iff ha d e x pe rie nc e d ga st ro-int e st ina l c om pla int s (i.e . na use a a nd Afe e ling ill@) a ft e r t he inc ide nt . Dr. Gre e n a ga in spe c ula t e d t ha t pla int iff m a y ha ve be e n c om ing dow n w it h influe nza . Dr. Gre e n m a y not spe c ula t e a bout or dia gnose t he pla int iff’s illne ss, a nd suc h t e st im ony doe s not sugge st a ny de fic ie nc y in Dr. Da m a =s diffe re nt ia l dia gnosis a s pla int iff=s t re a t ing physic ia n, sinc e Dr. Da m a re lia bly rule d out ot he r c a use s of pla int iff’s sym pt om s. Ac c ording t o t he M SDS, e x posure t o t he a c t ive c he m ic a ls in t he c hlorine pe lle t s m a y re sult in sym pt om s inc luding ga st roint e st ina l c om pla int s (i.e . Ase ve re a bdom ina l pa in, vom it ing@), a nd pla int iff=s re port e d c om pla int s of Ana use a @ a nd “fe e ling ill” a re e sse nt ia lly c onsist e nt w it h t his. IV. Conc lusion U pon re vie w of t he re c ord, a nd a ft e r c a re fully c onside ring t he t e st im ony a nd a rgum e nt a t t he Da ube rt he a ring, t he Court c onc lude s t ha t t he t e st im ony a nd/or opinions of bot h Dr. Da m a a nd Dr. Le vy a re Are lia ble a nd re le va nt @ unde r Rule 7 0 2 a nd Da ube rt a nd m a y be int roduc e d a t t ria l. Bot h physic ia n-e x pe rt s ut ilize d t he a c c e pt e d a nd va lid m e t hodology of diffe re nt ia l dia gnosis a nd/or e t iology in providing Page 21 of 23 t he ir c a usa t ion opinions t ha t pla int iff’s RADS w a s due t o sudde n w ork pla c e c he m ic a l e x posure . T he ir opinions a re ba se d on suffic ie nt fa c t s a nd da t a , use d re lia ble princ iple s a nd m e t hods, a nd a pplie d t hose princ iple s a nd m e t hods re lia bly t o t he fa c t s of pla int iff’s c a se . T he ir t e st im ony w ill a ssist t he t rie r-of-fa c t t o de t e rm ine re le va nt m a t t e rs in t his c a se . T he de fe nda nt =s la t e -ide nt ifie d e x pe rt w it ne ss, Dr. La ura Gre e n, Ph.D., t e st ifie d a t t he Da ube rt he a ring on m a t t e rs be yond he r e x pe rt ise a s a t ox ic ologist , a nd t his Court ha s a lre a dy sust a ine d va rious obje c t ions t o suc h t e st im ony. While Dr. Gre e n w ill be pe rm it t e d t o t e st ify a t t ria l, he r t e st im ony w ill be lim it e d t o subje c t s w it hin he r e x pe rt ise . I n ot he r w ords, she m a y t e st ify only a s t o ge ne ra l c a usa t ion, ra t he r t ha n a ny dia gnosis (i.e . spe c ific c a usa t ion) of pla int iff’s RADS. Pla int iff m a y produc e a re but t a l w it ne ss. Ac c ordingly, t he de fe nda nt =s AM ot ion in Lim ine @ (doc . no. 3 8 ) is DEN I ED; t he pla int iff=s AM ot ion t o St rik e @ is GRAN T ED insofa r a s Dr. Gre e n’s he a ring t e st im ony a s t o spe c ific c a usa t ion sha ll be st ric k e n, Page 22 of 23 but DEN I ED t o t he e x t e nt t ha t Dr. Gre e n m a y t e st ify a t t ria l; a nd pla int iff=s a lt e rna t ive re que st to produc e a re but t a l w it ne ss GRAN T ED. I T I S SO ORDERED. s/H e rm a n J . We be r H e rm a n J . We be r, Se nior J udge U nit e d St a t e s Dist ric t Court Page 23 of 23 is
]]>
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.
