California Court of Appeal Embraces Presence – Not Evidence – As Causation

By on January 10, 2018

Last month, a California court of appeal ruled that “a plaintiff has no obligation to prove asbestos exposure from a specific product on a specific date or time.” Rather, in Turley v. Familian Corp., the court found that exposure can be inferred if a defendant’s product was at a work site and “sufficiently prevalent to warrant an inference that plaintiff was exposed to it.” In other words, the court ruled that circumstantial evidence of a product’s mere presence is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

In Turley, defendant Familian moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiffs could not show exposure to asbestos in a Familian-brand product. The plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion included a declaration from a third-party witness who had not been deposed, but who testified that defendant-supplied asbestos-containing gaskets were frequently used on the many high-pressure and/or high-temperature valves at the two compressor stations supervised by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was commonly present when the work of replacing the asbestos-containing valves was being done. The trial court ruled that this was speculative and granted summary judgment.

The court of appeal reversed. The court found that the co-worker’s testimony had adequate foundation and was not speculative. “For example, [the co-worker] testified that when he was ordering gaskets, he knew they were asbestos-containing based on PG&E’s codes and other vendor numbers … [and] that the PG&E codes were necessarily based on content, because certain applications required asbestos-containing gaskets.”

This evidence was held sufficient to defeat summary judgment, even without evidence of “exposure from a specific product on a specific date or time.” Turley relied heavily upon the 1995 decision Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co., which reversed a nonsuit where “[w]hile there was no direct evidence that [plaintiff] was exposed to [defendant’s product], the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable inference of exposure.” The Turley court also discussed the more recent decision, Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, for the proposition that this kind of circumstantial evidence was sufficient in establishing causation. In Webb, the California Supreme Court rejected summary judgment where the plaintiff “was exposed to dust from Johns-Manville products containing trace amounts of crocidolite at roughly the same time Special Electric was supplying crocidolite asbestos to Johns-Manville. While evidence of the link could be stronger, it is nonetheless sufficient for the jury to have found that Special Electric’s asbestos was a substantial factor in causing [the plaintiff’s] mesothelioma.”

Turley v. Familian Corp. is yet another in a long line of California decisions that appear to expand liability by tempering the summary judgment standard. Unfortunately, the result may be opening the door for a rush of rather dubious asbestos cases.

Filed under Asbestos, California, Circumstantial Evidence, evidence

California appellate court bucks national trend, allows plaintiff experts to opine that “every asbestos exposure is a substantial factor”

By on March 4, 2016

Courts from around the country have rejected efforts by plaintiff experts to testify that every asbestos exposure is a substantial factor in causing disease. On March 3, 2016, California’s second appellate district went the other way, and held in Davis v. Honeywell International, Inc. that the controversial “every exposure counts” theory is admissible under governing expert witness law.   Thus, although trial courts are supposed to play a “gatekeeper” role in keeping out unreliable expert evidence (Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747), Davis breaks the gate wide open in allowing a jury, not the trial court in its “gatekeeper” role, to decide whether to accept the theory.

Davis was aGATEPICTURE wrongful death case.  Sam Davis  worked as an auto mechanic and home remodeler from approximately 1963 to 1979.  He performed “one or two” brake jobs per day, and always used Bendix brake linings (for which defendant Honeywell was responsible). These linings contained 50 percent chrysotile asbestos by weight.  He was also allegedly exposed to asbestos as a result of his home remodel work.

Prior to trial, Honeywell filed a motion in limine to preclude plaintiff from presenting expert opinion testimony that every exposure to asbestos above background contributed to decedent’s disease. The motion was denied, and plaintiff’s pathologist (James A. Strauchen, M.D.) and pulmonologist (William Rom, M.D.) were permitted to testify and advance the theory. Ultimately, the jury found for plaintiffs, and Honeywell appealed.

Honeywell’s primary basis for appeal was that the “every exposure counts” testimony of Dr. Strauchen should have been excluded. Honeywell advanced four arguments:  (1) the testimony was speculative and illogical; (2) the regulatory standards Strauchen relied upon cannot establish causation; (3) no appropriate scientific literature supports the theory; and (4) the theory is contrary to California causation law espoused in Rutherford v. Owens Illinois (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, which held that not every exposure to asbestos is a “substantial factor” in causing disease.

Davis rejected each of Honeywell’s arguments. “Having reviewed much of the commentary and scientific literature cited in support of and against the ‘every exposure’ theory, we conclude that the theory is the subject of legitimate scientific debate.   Because in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony the trial court ‘does not resolve scientific controversies (Sargon), it is for the jury to resolve the conflict between the every exposure theory and any competing expert opinions.”  The court focused largely on the mere existence of evidence that supported the “every exposure counts” theory, and declined to weigh the evidence or any competing inferences.   “While Honeywell is generally correct that in many (or even most) instances epidemiological studies provide the best evidence of causation, its implied argument that it is improper for an expert to rely upon any other tools to determine causation, such as case reports, is not universally accepted.”  As to Honeywell’s argument that “every exposure” contravenes Rutherford, Davis  interpreted Rutherford as not requiring a “dose level estimation,” instead issuing a sweeping statement interpreting Rutherford as supporting the conclusion that even a very small “dose” could increase the risk of asbestos-related cancer.  Davis distinguished the many cases from other jurisdictions rejecting this argument, including Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (2012) 615 Pa. 504, Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (Tex. 2014) 439 S.W.3d 332 and Moeller v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC (6th Cir. 2011) 660 F.3d 950. “[W]e simply disagree” that the “every exposure” theory could not be “reconciled with the fact that mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases are dose-dependent.”

The Davis court did state, however, that “[w]e caution that our discussion of the materials Dr. Strauchen relied upon should not be seen as approval of either side in that scientific dispute.  Rather, we rely upon the rule of Sargon that although trial courts ‘have a substantial ‘gatekeeping’ responsibility,’ in evaluating proposed expert opinion . . . the gate tended is not a partisan checkpoint . . . If the opinion is based on materials on which the expert may reasonably rely in forming the opinion, and flows in a reasoned chain of logic from those materials rather than from speculation or conjecture, the opinion may pass, even though the trial court or other experts disagree with its conclusion or the methods and materials used to reach it.”  (emphasis added)

Further, although much of the discussion relates to the “any exposure” theory, Davis pointed out that the case did not hinge on that theory.  “In this case, Dr. Strauchen was presented with a hypothetical based on the facts surrounding Davis’ exposure to dust from his work on Bendix brake linings, and testified as to estimates of the amount of asbestos fibers contained in visible dust. Therefore, his conclusion that Davis’ exposure to Bendix brake linings was a substantial factor in contributing to the risk of mesothelioma was not based simply on “any exposure” to asbestos, but instead related to an estimate of actual exposure.”

The decision is not yet final. It is still subject to a petition for rehearing, which could result in a change in the opinion, and to either or both a request for depublication and a petition for review to the California Supreme Court, either of which if granted would make this decision uncitable in California courts, though not necessarily elsewhere.

Filed under Asbestos, asbestos exposures, Daubert, every exposure counts, evidence, Expert Opinions, Expert Reports, expert testimony, Expert Witness, Frye, gatekeeper, Low Dose, Sargon, scientific literature, single fiber theory, Substantial Factor, Theories of Liability, Uncategorized

Comcast May Be A Class Action Game-Changer, But Not In Boston

By on December 19, 2013

In Comcast Corp. v Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (March 27, 2013), the Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in failing to consider flaws in plaintiffs’ damages model merely because the damages model would be pertinent on merits issues…..thus, "running afoul of our precedents requiring precisely that inquiry".  It was up to the district court to determine whether the expert’s methodology was "just and reasonable inference or speculative."  

Citing the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, the court held that the "first step in a damages study is the translation of the legal theory of the harmful event into an analysis of the economic impact of that event."  

Pre-Comcast, plaintiffs generally focused on getting over the hump of standing and/or alleging damages under various legal theories at the pleading stage, without knowing how they would ever prove up damages. No more! The ground has shifted beneath the feet of the plaintiff class action bar.  To cite the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the new judicial mantra is "No damages model, no predominance, no class certification".

Despite Comcast’s holding, some federal trial courts continue to certify class actions of arguably questionable merit. An example of such a case is In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation which was handed down by the District of Massachusetts on November 14, 2013.

Plaintiffs alleged that they paid higher prices for Nexium because less expensive generic versions of Nexium were prevented from coming onto the market due to AstraZeneca’s settlement with three generic manufacturers. The end-payors (as the plaintiffs called themselves) sought to certify a sprawling Rule 26(b)(3) class consisting of virtually every consumer (insured and uninsured), commercial insurer, health plan and pharmacy benefit manager who had paid any portion of the purchase price for Nexium for a six year period in twenty-six states.

Although the district court referenced the Supreme Court’s rulings in Wal-Mart and Comcast, it certified a class despite plaintiffs’ adoption of a model that adopted the use of “aggregate damages calculations.” The defendants properly objected to the damages model because it failed to account for differences in injuries and losses among class members.

The use of an "average" price differential, even if capable of being proven, ignored the variations within the class and did not identify which end-purchasers would have saved money and which would have lost money if and when generic Nexium had entered the market. Even the district court acknowledged that under plaintiffs’ model certain class members who suffered no damages whatsoever would remain in the class.

Applying the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit in In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., one of the most important circuit court decisions applying Comcast, class certification would most likely have been denied because common questions of fact cannot predominate where there exists no reliable means of proving classwide injury in fact.

Plaintiffs’ expert conceded that the proposed class included tens of thousands of consumers who would continue to purchase branded Nexium after generic entry due to preference or their physician’s recommendation. Such brand loyalists would potentially have faced higher Nexium prices had generic Nexium been available.

Other consumers were not injured because their co-pays were the same for both generic and branded Nexium. Plaintiffs’ average price differential model ignored variations within the class and failed to distinguish between purchasers who would have lost money if and when generic Nexium would have entered the market and those who would not have lost money.

 In an almost identical situation involving a similar set of facts and the same plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, a Philadelphia district court denied class certification in Sheet Metal Workers Local 1141 Health and Welfare Plan v. GlaxoSmithKline, No. 04-5898, 2010 WL 385552, at #27 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2010), class certification was denied by the Pennsylvannia district court (pre-Comcast) which rejected an analogous damages model proposed by Dr. Rosenthal in a case of alleged generic drug suppression involving the drug Wellbutrin SR.  There, as in the Nexium case, plaintiffs’ model failed to exclude uninjured class members. Because plaintiffs were unable to meet their burden of Rule 26(b)(3) that questions of law or fact common to class members predominated over any questions affecting only individual members, the district court denied class certification.

It is difficult to understand how the Massachusetts district court determined that the Nexium end-payors’ damages model met the “rigorous analysis” standard required by Comcast and Wal-Mart, particularly as there are many  thousands of plaintiffs in the class who have not suffered injury. Plaintiffs’ methodology indisputably failed to identify non-injured members of the class.  We look forward to the First Circuit’s analysis of the Rule 23(b)(3) issues presented by the case, assuming that an appeal is in the offing. 
 

Filed under average price differential, Class Action, Class Actions, Comcast, damages model, evidence, generic suppression, GlaxoSmithKline, Health, In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation, In re: Rail Freight Fuel, Local, Manual, Meredith, Metal, No damages model, no predominance, no class certification, Plan, Predominance, Rosenthal', Rule 23(b)(3), Scientific, Supreme Court, Wal-Mart, Welfare, Workers Tagged with , ,

CPSC’s New Database: An Opportunity for Abuse?

By on October 31, 2008

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”) provides that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) will establish and maintain an Internet database on the safety of consumer products.  The CPSIA Section 212 requires that the database be: (1) available to the public; (2)  searchable; and (3) accessible on the CPSC’s website.  Reports of harm caused by consumer products may be reported by consumers; local, state or federal govenment agencies; health care professionals; child service providers; and public safety entities. Ideally, the database will encourage the sharing of information and direct communications among consumers, consumer advocacy groups and state attorneys general, who have been given an important new role under the CPSIA.  For the first time, consumers will have direct instant access on the Agency’s website to potentially important product safety information.

The CPSIA of 2008 is much needed legislation to upgrade the level of  protection provided to the American consumer by the federal government.  The law represents the Congress’ response to a year of multiple, embarrassing consumer product scandal after another during what some commentators have termed the “Year of the Recall”.  In the past, information vital to the public welfare concerning defective consumer products has not been promptly provided to the American people.  At times, this delay may have been responsible for what may have been preventable injuries or deaths —  hence, the legislative mandate for the database.

In light of these public benefits, can there be any dark side to this new era of governmental transparency?  Are consumer product companies justified in fearing that the database has the potential to  spread disinformation and unfairly tarnish reputations?

The statute requires that a report submitted for inclusion on the database: (1) describe the consumer product; (2) identify the manufacturer or private labeler; (3) describe the harm related to the use of the product; (4) provide contact information; and (5) contain a verification that the report is true and accurate. Based upon informal Commission staffer comments, the CPSC is not required to perform an independent investigation to determine the veracity of a report or whether the incident that is the subject of the report occurred in the manner claimed or occurred at all.  For this reason, there is a risk that the database may morph into a  consumer Wikipedia, but with the imprimatur of United States approval and the gloss that comes from being hosted on a federal regulatory agency website.  What opportunity will  manufacturers have to comment on a report that one of their products may have triggered a fire in a home or caused a child to suffocate before the report is posted?  Unfortunately, not a whole lot!  The statute requires that within five days of receiving a report the Commission shall “to the extent practicable” transmit the report to the manufacturer identified in the report prior to the report being posted on the database.   Because the person making the report need not be identified to the manufacturer unless he or she explicitly consents, there may not be much the manufacturer can do, within the 10 day window provided before the report is posted, to determine whether the report is accurate. Certainly, this narrow window does not permit a manufacturer to obtain the product from a consumer, assuming the consumer can be identified, and inspect it.  The manufacturer can request that proprietary or trade secret information not be posted on the database, but that request, if granted, will result only in the sensitive information being redacted, not in a delay in posting the report on the database.  The statute permits a manufacturer to request that its own comments also be included in the database, but in the absence of a realistic time frame to perform an investigation of the underlying report, what would be an appropriate comment to make?  Moreover, the manufacturer may be at a disadvantage if reporters call seeking comment after the consumer’s report is posted by the Commission.

Read more of this post

Filed under clear and conspicuous notice, CPSC database, CPSIA, evidence, Product Manufacturers, product recalls, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation, year of the recall Tagged with