259 F. Supp. 3d 702
E.D. Mich.2016Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Dixon, a former Grand Trunk Western Railroad carman, alleges 20+ years of repetitive stooping, squatting, and kneeling at work contributed to osteoarthritis (OA) in his knees.
- Dixon retained Dr. Robert Andres (ergonomist) and Dr. Robert Widmeyer (orthopedic surgeon). Defendant retained Dr. Laura Wojcik (biomechanical engineer) and David Brookings (civil engineer).
- Defendant moved to exclude Dixon’s experts under Rule 702/Daubert and to exclude Dixon’s general causation theory; Dixon moved to limit defendant’s experts and challenged timeliness. Defendant also moved for summary judgment.
- Key disputed evidentiary issues: reliability of Widmeyer’s differential-diagnosis methodology and scope of his right-knee OA opinion; whether Andres’s ergonomic opinions are admissible and sufficient for causation/notice; whether general causation theory should be excluded.
- Court applied Rule 702/Daubert principles and FELA’s relaxed causation standard (employer liable if its negligence played any part, however small).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Widmeyer’s etiology/differential-diagnosis | Widmeyer used accepted differential etiology, reviewed history, imaging, exam, and literature to opine occupational cause | Methodology is unreliable under Daubert; lacked site visit and new testing | Admissible: differential etiology reliable here; testimony survives Daubert for causation |
| Existence of OA in right knee (Widmeyer) | Widmeyer’s exam supports bilateral OA | No treating physician diagnosed right-knee OA; Widmeyer’s investigation into right knee was insufficient | Excluded: opinion that Dixon has right-knee OA lacks sufficient factual basis |
| Admissibility of Andres (ergonomist) opinions | Andres reviewed literature, estimated exposures, opined tasks could cause OA and that employer’s practices were below industry standards | Defendant argues Andres cannot prove dose/response or specific causation and relied on self-report; ergo inadmissible | Admissible: Andres’s methods and sources sufficient under Rule 702; may be tested by cross-examination |
| Summary judgment on causation/notice | Dixon: Andres + Widmeyer create triable issues; FELA’s relaxed causation standard applies | Grand Trunk: no evidence of unsafe conditions or causation; expert testimony insufficient | Denied: factual disputes and expert evidence (except right-knee OA opinion) preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore & Ohio S.W. R.R. Co. v. Carroll, 280 U.S. 491 (1929) (FELA requires reasonable care, not absolute safety)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeping for expert reliability)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies flexibly to non-scientific experts)
- Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 620 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2010) (limits on differential etiology where speculative)
- Hardyman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 243 F.3d 255 (6th Cir. 2001) (approves differential etiology and relaxed causation in railroad ergonomic cases)
- CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (2011) (FELA causation relaxed: any part, however small)
- Aparicio v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 84 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 1996) (ergonomics expert can show employer should have known of risk factors)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: no genuine dispute of material fact)