Goodrich v. John Crane, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | ACTION NO. 4:17cv9 |
| Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia) |
| Parties | HARRY L. GOODRICH and AGNES P. GOODRICH, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant. |
HARRY L. GOODRICH and
AGNES P. GOODRICH, Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant.
ACTION NO. 4:17cv9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Newport News Division
September 28, 2018
OMNIBUS OPINION AND ORDER CONCERNING PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
This matter comes before the Court on assorted motions in limine filed by plaintiffs, Harry and Agnes Goodrich, and defendant, John Crane, Inc. Plaintiffs' motions in limine seek: (1) to limit the testimony of Captain Margaret McCloskey; (2) to limit the testimony of John Henshaw; (3) to bar testimony about and reliance upon certain studies addressing asbestos fiber potency ratios; and (4) to limit defense expert testimony relying upon dose reconstruction. ECF Nos. 68-69, 71, 73. Defendant filed oppositions in response thereto, ECF Nos. 111-12, 114, 117, and plaintiffs filed replies in support of their motions, ECF Nos. 130-31, 133, 135. Defendant's motion in limine seeks to prohibit evidence of regulatory and policy statements as evidence of medical causation. ECF No. 87. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition thereto, ECF No. 125, and defendant filed a reply in support of its motion, ECF No. 137. On September
Page 2
10, 2018, the Court held a motions hearing.1 Robert R. Hatten, Esq., William W.C. Harty, Esq., and Erin E. Jewell, Esq., represented plaintiffs. Brian J. Schneider, Esq., Eric G. Reeves, Esq., and Kathleen McCauley, Esq., represented defendant. The court reporter was Jody Stewart. For the reasons stated below, the Court: (1) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiffs' motion to limit the testimony of Captain McCloskey (ECF No. 68); (2) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiffs' motion to limit the testimony of John Henshaw (ECF No. 69); (3) GRANTS plaintiffs' motion to limit testimony about and reliance upon reports and studies concerning asbestos fiber potency ratios (ECF No. 73); (4) DENIES plaintiffs' motion to preclude so-called dose reconstruction testimony and evidence (ECF No. 71); and (5) DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE defendant's motion to prohibit evidence of regulatory and policy statements as evidence of medical causation (ECF No. 87).
On February 2, 2017, plaintiffs filed a four-count complaint against five defendants, including John Crane, Inc. ("JCI"). Compl., ECF No. 1. The complaint alleges that, while serving in the United States Navy from June 23, 1959 to June 17, 1963, Harry Goodrich inhaled asbestos fibers, particles, and dust due to exposure to the defendants' asbestos-containing products, which caused him to contract malignant mesothelioma. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 26; ECF No. 112-3 at 2. The complaint seeks recovery for defendants' alleged negligence (count one) and strict liability in tort (count two), and for spousal, pre-death loss of society and consortium
Page 3
(count three). Compl. ¶¶ 27-38.2 JCI, the only remaining defendant,3 answered the complaint on February 24, 2017. ECF No. 10.
On January 18, 2018, the Court issued an order granting plaintiffs' first motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 28) and denying JCI's motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 51). ECF No. 107. In this order, the Court rejected JCI's statute of limitations defense and adopted the so-called "two-disease rule," ruling that "[p]laintiffs' suit [was] not time-barred" because "a seaman may bring suit for a nonmalignant asbestos-related disease without triggering the statute of limitations for any subsequent malignant asbestos-related diseases that may develop." Id. at 8.
The following general factual background is drawn from the complaint, the Court's January 18, 2018 summary judgment ruling, and various filings made by the parties. Harry Goodrich served in the Navy for approximately four years, from 1959 to 1963 and worked as a fireman apprentice, a fireman, a machinist's mate, and boiler tender. Compl. ¶ 13; ECF No. 29 at 5; ECF No. 107 at 1; ECF No. 112-2 at 14. After attending basic training, Goodrich4 served as a crewmember: (1) on a destroyer, the USS Corry (DDR-817), from approximately September 1959 to June 1961; (2) on another destroyer, the USS Harlan Dickson (DD-708) from approximately July 1961 to September 1962; and (3) on a destroyer tender, the USS Yosemite
Page 4
(AD-19) from September 1962 to June 1963. ECF No. 69-5 at 9-12; ECF No. 29-5 at 24; ECF No. 112-3 at 2. Goodrich separated from the Navy on June 17, 1963 as a machinist's mate, third class. ECF No. 29-5 at 16.
The complaint alleges that, while in the Navy, Goodrich "was continuously and daily required to install, remove, repair, alter, fabricate, work with, use, handle and/or otherwise come into contact with and/or to be exposed to [the defendants'] asbestos-containing products," which led to his "inhalation of asbestos dust, fibers, and/or particles" and the contamination of his clothes, person, and belongings with the same. Compl. ¶ 26. Goodrich contends that the aforementioned products included gaskets and packing manufactured by JCI, alleged to contain chrysotile asbestos. ECF No. 99 at 3. Goodrich alleges that his work with such products "directly and proximately caused [him] to contract malignant mesothelioma, which is permanent and/or fatal."5 Compl. ¶¶ 29, 33.
According to a March 7, 2017 affidavit filed by Goodrich in support of plaintiffs' May 26, 2017 motion for partial summary judgment, a series of medical scans from 2010 to 2012 and a biopsy revealed evidence of non-malignant lung conditions, including "calcified pleural plaques bilaterally, mild," which were suggestive of "mild asbestos exposure." ECF No. 29-5 at 2-3.
On May 22, 2012, Goodrich submitted a claim to the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") seeking disability benefits for "non-Hodgkin[']s lymphoma, right lung wedge resection, and evidence of asbestos exposure in left lung, lung asbestos damage, pleural thickening and calcification in both lungs." Id. at 3, 13-15, 18. In his VA application, Goodrich wrote:
Page 5
While in the Navy I was exposed to dry-powdered asbestos while in my duty station. We did repairs on pipes covered with asbestos & made new covers from asbestos. More than one person I served & worked with has died from asbestosis. I was a machinist mate in the engine room.
My medical report from 1-2012 shows pleural thickening & calcifications in the lungs from previous asbestos exposure. I have had a lump removed from the right lung (non-malignant)[.] I also have Non[-]Hodgkin[']s lymphoma. Could be connected with asbestos.???
Id. at 18. On August 23, 2013, the VA: (1) granted Goodrich a 10% service-connected disability rating, effective June 5, 2012, for "pleural plaques due to [a]sbestos exposure, (claimed as lung damage and lung wedge, resection)"; (2) granted a 0% service-connected disability rating for "residual surgical scars, S/P right upper lobe apex wedge resection"; and (3) denied a service-connected disability for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.6 Id. at 22. Three years later, on September 2, 2016, the complaint alleges that Goodrich was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, "a debilitating and terminal condition with an average life expectancy of six to eighteen months." Compl. ¶¶ 14, 37; ECF No. 29-5 at 35. This condition is a "'separate and distinct disease' from pleural plaques." ECF No. 107 at 2.
These facts will be further supplemented below, as necessary, in discussing the parties' motions and contentions.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides for the admission of expert testimony "in the form of an opinion or otherwise" upon satisfaction of the following conditions:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
Page 6
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Courts have condensed these requirements into two primary inquiries: "1) whether the proposed expert's testimony is relevant; and 2) whether it is reliable." Yates v. Ford Motor Co., No. 5:12-CV-752-FL, 2015 WL 3948303, at *1 (E.D.N.C. June 29, 2015) (citing Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999); Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589; United States v. Forrest, 429 F.3d 73, 80 (4th Cir. 2005)). Before expert testimony is placed before a jury, a trial court must engage in such inquiries and fulfill its "special gatekeeping obligation." Nease v. Ford Motor Co., 848 F.3d 219, 230-31 (4th Cir. 2017) (noting that cross-examination of an expert at trial is no substitute for the trial court's exercise of its gatekeeping duties). As gatekeeper, a trial judge must remain mindful that, while "Rule 702 was intended to liberalize the introduction of relevant expert evidence," the potentially powerful and persuasive nature of such evidence requires its exclusion when there exists "a greater potential to mislead than to enlighten." Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).
To be deemed reliable, an expert's testimony must be grounded in "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge and not on belief or speculation" and "derived [from the use of] scientific or other valid methods." Oglesby v. Gen. Motors Corp., 190 F.3d 244, 250 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590, 592-93); see Nease, 848 F.3d at 230 (noting that "Kumho Tire [made clear] that Daubert was not limited to the testimony of scientists"). For this reason, proposed expert testimony about matters commonly within a jury's knowledge and
Page 7
experience fails to qualify as helpful and is excluded by Rule 702. Persinger v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 920 F.2d 1185, 1188 (4th Cir. 1990). In determining whether expert...
To continue reading
Request your trial