Challenging Expert Opinions: Every Fiber Does NOT Contribute

1. Challenging Expert Opinions:Every Fiber Does NOT Contribute Edward M. Slaughter eslaughter@hptylaw.com Hawkins Parnell Thackston & YoungLLP Atlanta • Austin • Charleston • Dallas Los Angeles • St. Louis • San Francisco

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 • eslaughter@hptylaw.com

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

4. 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. 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. The Ideal Expert Challenge Scenerio • 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

7. Example of Friction Exposure

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

9. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.