Watts v. Radiator Specialty Co.

Decision Date12 June 2008
Docket NumberNo. 2006-CA-01128-SCT.,2006-CA-01128-SCT.
Citation990 So.2d 143
PartiesMilton Cecil WATTS v. RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY and United States Steel Corporation.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Eugene Coursey Tullos, Louis H. Watson, Jr., Daryl L. Moore, Lance H. Lubel, J. Robert Black, attorneys for appellant.

S. Leanna Bankester, Joe E. Basenberg, George M. Walker, Rance N. Ulmer, James M. Riley, Jr., Stephen L. Thomas, Mary Clay W. Morgan, Fred Krutz, Phillip S. Sykes, James William Manuel, attorneys for appellees.

Before WALLER, P.J., CARLSON and LAMAR, JJ.

LAMAR, Justice, for the Court.

¶ 1. This case comes before the Court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Smith County. Following a trial in which the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Circuit Judge Robert G. Evans granted the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) after finding that the testimony of the plaintiff's expert on the issue of causation should have been excluded as scientifically unreliable. The trial court entered an order dismissing the plaintiff's case with prejudice, and the plaintiff appeals.

FACTS

¶ 2. Plaintiff Milton C. Watts was diagnosed with small-cell lymphocytic lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in 1999.1 At the time of trial, Watts was 72 years old. Beginning in 1947, and throughout much of his career, Watts used a product called Liquid Wrench which was manufactured by Defendant Radiator Specialty Company.2 Liquid Wrench was made with a solvent called raffinate which contained benzene. The benzene-containing raffinate used by Radiator Specialty to manufacture Liquid Wrench was produced by Defendant U.S. Steel Corporation.3

¶ 3. Watts first used Liquid Wrench while in vocational school in 1947. Watts testified that between 1953 and 1961, that he used Liquid Wrench one to five times per day while working odd jobs as a mechanic. There were times, Watts testified, where he would have to clean parts for hours at a time in a room with no ventilation. Watts began working on locomotives for a company called Masonite in 1970, and he continued to work there until his retirement in 1996. He used Liquid Wrench consistently while working on the locomotives.

¶ 4. It is Watts's contention that his lymphoma was caused by his exposure to the benzene-containing raffinate in Liquid Wrench. It is undisputed that benzene can cause serious health problems in individuals who are exposed to it. However, the defendants contend that there is no evidence of a link between benzene exposure and small-cell lymphocytic lymphoma. The defendants claim that Dr. Barry Levy, Plaintiff's medical expert on causation, "is the only medical doctor who believes that a demonstrable causal association exists between benzene exposure and [non-Hodgkin's lymphoma]."

COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS

¶ 5. Watts filed his complaint against Radiator Specialty and U.S. Steel in the Circuit Court of Smith County on October 11, 2002. The defendants each moved for summary judgment, but it was denied by the trial court. The defendants also moved to have the plaintiff's medical expert, Dr. Barry Levy, disqualified. This motion was renewed at trial and was denied by the trial judge, who allowed Levy to be qualified as an expert in epidemiology and occupational medicine.

¶ 6. The trial began on November 8, 2004, and the jury returned a verdict for Watts in the amount of $2 million.4 Following entry of the judgement on March 9, 2005, defendants made a motion for JNOV (or, in the alternative, a new trial) claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had erred in admitting the testimony of Dr. Levy as to causation. After briefing and argument on the motion, the trial court agreed that Dr. Levy's causation testimony was scientifically unreliable. In particular, the trial court found that "neither the cohort studies nor the case control studies relied upon by Dr. Levy at trial supported his opinion that a causal connection exists between benzene exposure and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." The court entered an order granting the defendants' motion for JNOV and conditionally granting the defendants a new trial should this Court reverse the grant of JNOV. The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal with prejudice, and this appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

I. The trial court's exclusion of Dr. Levy's testimony

¶ 7. "When reviewing a trial court's decision to allow or disallow evidence including expert testimony, we apply an abuse of discretion standard." Canadian Nat'l/Ill. Cent. R.R. v. Hall, 953 So.2d 1084, 1094 (Miss.2007). Unless this Court concludes that a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence was arbitrary and clearly erroneous, that decision will stand. Irby v. Travis, 935 So.2d 884, 912 (Miss.2006). Under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702, trial courts are charged with being gatekeepers in evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony. Id. "We are confident that our learned trial judges can and will properly assume the role as gatekeeper on questions of admissibility of expert testimony." Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31, 40 (Miss.2003). Mississippi Rule of Evidence 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, if (1) their testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

This rule makes it necessary for a trial court to apply a two-pronged inquiry when evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony: (1) is the witness qualified, and (2) is the testimony relevant and reliable? McLemore, 863 So.2d at 35.5 There is no dispute that Dr. Levy was properly qualified as an expert in epidemiology and occupational medicine. Thus, the admissibility of Dr. Levy's causation testimony turns on its reliability and its relevance.

¶ 8. Dr. Levy testified as to general causation (that benzene causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) and specific causation (that benzene-containing Liquid Wrench caused Mr. Watts's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma). The methodology used in forming his opinion as to general causation was the review of eighteen case studies done by different researchers between 1979 and 2004.6 While the defendants do not challenge this methodology, they do challenge the reliability and relevance of the case studies Dr. Levy relied upon.

¶ 9. While case-study review is certainly an accepted methodology, trial courts still must be certain that the content of those case studies is relevant to the facts at hand. A review of the case studies supports the trial court's finding that Dr. Levy's testimony as to the content of the studies and their relevance to the facts of this case could easily have misled the jury. This Court recently spoke to the danger of unreliable expert testimony and the effect that it can have on the decision-making process of a juror.

Juries are often in awe of expert witnesses because, when the expert witness is qualified by the court, they hear impressive lists of honors, education and experience. An expert witness has more experience and knowledge in a certain area than the average person. Therefore, juries usually place greater weight on the testimony of an expert witness than that of a lay witness.

Edmonds v. State, 955 So.2d 787, 792 (Miss.2007). Being no exception, Dr. Levy's testimony about his education and experience covered five pages of transcript. This included his testimony that he attended Tufts College in Boston and Cornell Medical School in New York, and that he obtained a master's degree in public health from the Harvard School of Public Health. Because of the weight that is given to expert testimony, it is imperative that trial judges remain steadfast in their role as gatekeepers under the Daubert standard.

¶ 10. In striking Dr. Levy's causation testimony, the trial court specifically cited Radiator Specialty's brief supporting the motion for JNOV. In that brief, Radiator Specialty reviewed each of the eighteen case studies and criticized Dr. Levy's reliance upon them.7 Of the eighteen studies Dr. Levy cited, he testified that only half showed a statistically significant increase in risk due to benzene exposure. None of the studies specifically looked at the possible risks associated with use of Liquid Wrench. None specifically studied the risks of development of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in mechanics, Watts's profession.8 One of the studies suggested that the reported increase in risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was not occupationally related. Another of the studies, which included a review of other studies, reported no significant increase in risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma due to benzene exposure. Several of the studies did not provide a dose-response ratio.9 Finally, not one study concluded that there is a causal link between benzene exposure and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. In fact, one of the authors of a study relied upon by Dr. Levy testified that there was no legitimate basis to conclude that there is a link between benzene exposure, much less Liquid Wrench, and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas.10

¶ 11. These facts call into question the reliability and relevance of the studies upon which Dr. Levy based his conclusion that Liquid Wrench caused Watts's small-cell lymphocytic lymphoma. None of these studies provide a basis for the conclusion that there is a causal connection between benzene exposure and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, much less small-cell lymphocytic lymphoma, the particular type from which Watts suffers.

¶ 12. Relevance, as defined by our standard for admitting expert testimony, depends upon whether the reasoning or methodology employed by the expert witness...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • Savage v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 4 Agosto 2017
    ......, MD) on brief, for Respondent Argued before: Barbera, C.J., Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ. Greene, J. 455 Md. 141 A jury in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County ...DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 470 Mich. 749, 685 N.W.2d 391, 408 (2004) ; Watts v. Radiator Specialty Co. , 990 So.2d 143, 147 (Miss. 2008) ; State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts v. ......
  • Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Brent
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 27 Marzo 2014
    ...... content of [the] studies [upon which the expert relies] is relevant to the facts at hand.” Watts v. Radiator Specialty Co., 990 So.2d 143, 146 (Miss.2008). As for the general acceptance of Mann's ......
  • Clark v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 4 Febrero 2021
    ......, including 315 So.3d 994 expert testimony, we apply an abuse of discretion standard." Watts v. Radiator Specialty Co. , 990 So. 2d 143, 145-46 (Miss. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) ......
  • Savage v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 4 Agosto 2017
    ......22-K-13-000535 Barbera, C.J. Greene, Adkins, McDonald, Watts, Hotten, Getty, JJ. Opinion by Greene, J. Barbera, C.J., Adkins and McDonald, JJ., concur. Page 3 ... DaimlerChrysler Corp ., 685 N.W.2d 391, 408 (Mich. 2004); Watts v . Radiator Specialty Co ., 990 So. 2d 143, 147 (Miss. 2008); State Bd . of Registration for Healing Arts v . ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • 50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • 1 Junio 2023
    ...testimony in personal injury cases are: Thompson v. Holliman, 283 So.3d 718, 721, 725-26 (Miss. 2019); Watts v. Radiator Specialty Co., 990 So. 2d 143, 146-47, 150 (Miss. June 12, 2008); Young v. Illinois. Central Railroad Co., 284 So.3d 839, 849 (Miss. App. 2019); Howell v. Holiday, 155 So......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT