Court Denies Effort to Block Witness, Calling Expert Testimony “Helpful”

Dr. Carl Brodkin is no stranger to malignant mesothelioma or to its causes. A specialist in occupational and environmental medicine, he is frequently deployed as an expert witness to speak on behalf of those who have been harmed by their exposure to asbestos. As a result of his effectiveness, asbestos companies are aggressive in their attempts to have his testimony barred, but this ploy rarely works, as was seen in a recent case heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Victim Blames Asbestos in Bendix Brakes for Mesothelioma

The case was filed by Agnes and Thomas Toy, Jr. after Mr. Toy was diagnosed with, and later died of, malignant mesothelioma. The couple filed suit against Honeywell International as successor-in-interest to The Bendix Corporation, which manufactured the Bendix brakes that the couple blames for his asbestos exposure. As part of their claim, they enlisted Dr. Brodkin to testify regarding causation.

Honeywell moved to have Dr. Brodkin’s testimony barred, arguing that he did not quantify the mesothelioma victim’s exposure to asbestos from Bendix brakes, and that without that information his opinion was based on an “each and every exposure” theory of causation. They also argued that he ignores studies concluding that brake mechanics do not have an increased risk for developing mesothelioma from asbestos exposure.

Court Rules Against Honeywell in Mesothelioma Case

In reviewing Honeywell’s argument, the court sided with the mesothelioma victim’s family, saying that evidentiary rules are intended to be flexible and that “when evaluating specialized or technical expert opinion testimony, ‘the relevant reliability concerns may focus upon personal knowledge or experience.’” They also pointed out that quantifiable evidence is not required, and that rather all that is needed is proof that exposure to a defendant’s product was a “substantial factor” causing the illness, and that Dr. Brodkin could meet this burden by demonstrating a “reasonable medical probability.”

With reference to the asbestos company’s argument regarding the “each and every exposure” theory of mesothelioma causation, the court noted that “Dr. Brodkin does not conclude that every exposure to an asbestos-containing product caused Mr. Toy’s mesothelioma. Rather, he considered the type of work Mr. Toy performed; the amount of time he engaged in such work; and the amount of asbestos produced from such activities. There is therefore more than just “speculat[ion] as to the actual extent of his exposure to asbestos from [Defendants’] materials.” Dr. Brodkin’s testimony will be permitted.