Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc.
| Citation | 80 F.3d 777 |
| Decision Date | 11 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2148,94-2148 |
| Parties | , 64 USLW 2676, 44 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 55, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,548 Grace A. HOLBROOK, Administratrix of the Estate of John P. Holbrook v. LYKES BROS. STEAMSHIP CO., INC.; Marine Transport Lines Inc.; Puerto Rico Marine Mgmt., Inc.; Sea-Land Service, Inc.; Second Shipmor Associates v. The BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY; Combustion Engineering, Inc.; Foster-Wheeler Energy Corporation; The General Electric Co.; Keene Corporation, Independently and as Successor in Interest to Ehret Magnesia Manufacturing Company, Baldwin-Hill Company and Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Inc.; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.; Pittsburgh Corning Corporation; Anchor Packing Company; AC & S, Inc.; Flexitallic Gasket Company, Inc.; Garlock, Inc.; Owens-Illinois Glass Company; Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; Hopeman Brothers, Inc.; Shook & Fletcher; National Gypsum Corp.; GAF Corporation, Third Party Defendants Grace A. HOLBROOK, Administratrix for the Estate of John P. Holbrook v. ACANDS, INC.; American Asbestos Products Co.; Anchor Packing Co.; A.P. Green Refractories Company; Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; Asarco; Asbestospray Corporation; Asbestos Textile Company; B.F. Goodrich Co.; Caroline Asbestos Company; Certainteed Corp.; Colts Patent Firearms Mfg. Co.; Combustion Engineering, Inc.; John Crane-Houdaille, Inc.; Dar Industrial Products, Inc.; Fibreboard Corporation; Flexitallic, Inc.; Foster Wheeler Company; GAF Corporation; Garlock, Inc.; Gatke Corp.; General Electric Co.; General Insulating and Mfg. Co.; Goodyear Tire And Rubber Company; Imo Delaval, Inc.; Kaiser Cement & Gypsum; Keene Corporation; National Manufacturing Sales; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.; Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Philadelphia Asbestos Company; PPG Industries; Pabco Products; Pittsburgh Corning Corporation; Turner & Newall Plc.; Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., Inc.; U.S. Gypsum Company; U.S. Rubber Company; Westinghouse Electric Corp.; ACMC, f/k/a National Gypsum Company Appeal of Grace Holbrook, Administratrix for the |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, D.C. Civil Action No. 92-cv-01906; James T. Giles, District Judge.
Leonard C. Jaques, Donald A. Krispin, Michael Connor (argued) Jaques Admiralty Law Firm, Detroit, MI, for Appellant.
Faustino Mattioni, Mattioni, Mattioni & Mattioni, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Lykes Bros.
Robert B. Lawler, Mary Cook, Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba, Philadelphia, PA, for Puerto Rico Marine; Sea-Land; Second Shipmor; Acands; A.P. Green; Armstrong World; John Crane-Houdaille; Flexitallic; GAF; Garlock; Imo Delaval; National Gypsum; Turner Newall; Union Carbide; U.S. Gypsum; Westinghouse; Combustion Engineering; Foster-Wheeler; Owens-Corning; Shook & Fletcher.
Richard C. Binzley, Harold W. Henderson, Thompson, Hine & Flory, Cleveland, OH, for Appellees: Puerto Rico Marine; Sea-Land; Second Shipmor.
Alexander Ewing, Jr., Gollatz, Griffin, Ewing & McCarthy, Media, PA, for Appellee Acands.
Wesley R. Payne, IV, Law Office of Joseph P. Sullivan, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Houdaille.
John A. Turlik, Goldfein & Joseph, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Garlock.
Reeder R. Fox, Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Imo Delaval.
Eric J. Kadish, McCarter & English, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Appellee Owens-Illinois.
Steven T. Johnson (argued), Johnson & Garvin, Seattle, WA, for Appellee Owens-Illinois.
William A. Jones, Sherr, Joffe & Zuckerman, West Conshohocken, PA, for Appellee Westinghouse.
John P. McShea, III, Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Westinghouse.
William R. Hourican, Manta & Welge, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee PPG Industries.
John L. Delany, III, Delany & O'Brien, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Combustion Engineering.
Joseph M. O'Neill, Marks, O'Neill, Reilly & O'Brien, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Foster-Wheeler.
E. Michael Keating, III, Clark, Ladner, Fortenbaugh & Young, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee General Electric.
Robert N. Spinelli, Kelley, Jasons, McGuire & Spinelli, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Owens-Corning.
Andrew J. Trevelise, Marilyn Heffley, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellees: Pittsburgh Corning; Fibreboard.
Leslie A. Miller, Goldfein & Joseph, Philadelphia, PA, for Anchor Packing.
William G. Scarborough, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Hopeman Bros.
Before: MANSMANN, SCIRICA and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
John Holbrook sued several shipping companies and manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos products, alleging that he developed mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos-containing products while working aboard the shipping companies' vessels. John Holbrook died in October of 1993, and his widow, Grace Holbrook ("Holbrook"), administratrix of his estate, was substituted as plaintiff. The jury found for defendants on liability. Holbrook now challenges several evidentiary rulings by the district court, including the court's rulings: 1) excluding testimony from the decedent's treating physician on his diagnosis of mesothelioma; 2) excluding testimony from a pulmonologist eliminating radiation as a cause of John Holbrook's mesothelioma; 3) allowing testimony by two defense experts on radiation exposure as a cause; and 4) redacting references to mesothelioma contained in various documents. Holbrook argues that the trial judge's conduct was unfair and requests a new trial before a different judge. We conclude that the court's conduct did not prevent a fair trial, but that the court committed reversible error by excluding testimony from appellant's experts. We will reverse and remand the cause for a new trial.
Holbrook served as a merchant seaman aboard the shipping companies' vessels from 1953 to 1991. He also served aboard ship in the South Pacific for seven months in 1962 during a government nuclear testing operation called "Dominic I." At trial, Holbrook sought to prove that John Holbrook died from mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure aboard the shipping vessels. The defendants contended that the exposure to asbestos, if any, was minimal and could not have caused mesothelioma, and that if John Holbrook suffered from mesothelioma, it resulted from radiation exposure during Dominic I. Both sides contested the admissibility of various experts' testimony.
The district court excluded certain testimony by Dr. Carpenter, John Holbrook's treating physician, and by Dr. Altschuler, a board-certified physician in internal and pulmonary medicine. The court felt that they lacked the requisite specialization to testify as to certain matters. It based its ruling, in part, on its conclusion that mesothelioma and its cause are difficult to diagnose, and that only a few types of medical specialists would qualify to give expert opinion testimony about it.
The Federal Rules of Evidence embody a "strong and undeniable preference for admitting any evidence having some potential for assisting the trier of fact." DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F.2d 941, 956 (3d Cir.1990). "Rule 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, specifically embraces this policy," United States v. Velasquez, 64 F.3d 844, 849 (3d Cir.1995), and has a liberal policy of admissibility. In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation ("Paoli II "), 35 F.3d 717, 741 (3d Cir.1994)- . Together, Rules 702 and 104(a) instruct the district court in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. Rule 702 provides:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Under Rule 104(a), the district court makes preliminary determinations whether the proposed expert witness is qualified and whether the testimony to be given is admissible under Rule 702. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, ----, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2796, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). This preliminary task ensures that the testimony meets a minimum threshold of reliability and relevance. Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2795; Velasquez, 64 F.3d at 849.
Under Rule 702, (1) the proffered witness must be an expert; (2) the expert must testify about matters requiring scientific, technical or specialized knowledge; and (3) the expert's testimony must assist the trier of fact. Paoli II, 35 F.3d at 741-42. Holbrook's first allegation of error, the court's ruling excluding testimony by her experts, concerns the first requirement. The issue of the admissibility of the defense experts' testimony, discussed in section III, infra, involves the other two requirements.
The first requirement of Rule 702--that the proposed witness be an expert--has been liberally construed by this Court. Paoli II, 35 F.3d at 741. "We have held that a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert as such," and have "eschewed imposing overly rigorous requirements of expertise." Id.; see also Hammond v. International Harvester Co., 691 F.2d 646, 653 (3d Cir.1982) ().
Dr. Carpenter, John Holbrook's treating physician, specializes in internal medicine. At trial, Dr. Carpenter described the medical procedures undertaken to diagnose and treat John Holbrook. In great detail, he described the treatment, including his injection of the chemotherapeutic agent fluorouracil into his patient's chest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yarchak v. Trek Bicycle Corp.
...the qualifications requirement has generally been liberally construed by courts in this district. Id.; Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc., 80 F.3d 777, 781 (3d Cir.1996); Hammond v. International Harvester Co., 691 F.2d 646, 653 (3d Cir.1982). Exclusion is, therefore, "improper sim......
-
Loeffel Steel Products, Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc.
...machinery — is inconsistent with the liberal approach to expert witness qualification taken by Rule 702. See Holbrook v. Lykes Brothers Steam Ship, 80 F.3d 777, 782 (3rd Cir.1996); Carroll v. Otis Elevator Co., 896 F.2d 210, 212 (7th Cir.1990). Overemphasis on qualifications over testimonia......
-
Kikumura v. U.S.
...on a certain kind of degree or background is inconsistent with [Third Circuit] jurisprudence in this area." Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc., 80 F.3d 777, 781 (3d Cir.1996) (citation omitted). "The language of Rule 702 [of the Federal Rules of Evidence] and the accompanying advisory n......
-
In re Intelligroup Securities Litigation
...(plaintiffs expert may opine on plaintiffs facts, so long as the expert uses "reliable principles and methods"); Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 80 F.3d 777, 781 (3d Cir.1996) (scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge might be needed to determine a technical fact). Two Suprem......
-
Assessing Expert Methodology: Daubert: in the Third Circuit and the District of New Jersey
...2003) at 321; Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396, 404 (3rd Cir. 2003). Schneider, 320 F.3d at 404. Holbrook v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Co., 80 F.3d 777, 782 (3rd Cir. Yarchak v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 208 F. Supp. 2d 470, 494-95 (D.NJ. 2002). Waldorf V. Shuta, 142 F.3d 601, 625 (3rd Cir. 1998).......
-
Introduction to evidentiary foundations
...to Rule 803(10), the exception for public o൶cial certiication that a government record does not exist. Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co. , 80 F.3d 777 (3rd Cir. 1996). The trial court abuses its discretion by applying more restrictive standards for the introduction of expert testimony than r......
-
Presenting Your Expert at Trial and Arbitration
...on the weight to be assigned to the testimony by the trier of fact, not its admissibility. See Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc., 80 F.3d 777, 782 (3d Cir. 1996) stating that “most arguments about an expert’s qualifications relate more to the weight to be given the expert’s testimony t......
-
Tactics
...Rule 803(10), the exception for public official certification that a government record does not exist. Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co. , 80 F.3d 777 (3rd Cir. 1996). The trial court abuses its discretion by applying more restrictive standards for the introduction of expert testimony than r......
-
Presenting Your Expert at Trial and Arbitration
...on the weight to be assigned to the testimony by the trier of fact, not its admissibility. See Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc ., 80 F.3d 777, 782 (3d Cir. 1996) stating that “most arguments about an expert’s qualifications relate more to the weight to be given the expert’s testimony ......