Gregory Johnson v. Arkema, Incorporated
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12552
5th Cir.2012Background
- Johnson worked as a machine repairman at Owens Illinois’ glass bottling plant (1998–2008).
- Two June–July 2007 exposure incidents near Arkema’s C-4 Hood allegedly released Certincoat (MBTC) and byproducts (HC1, tin oxide).
- C-4 Hoods are designed to capture vapors; Johnson contends it failed, causing exposure.
- Post-exposure, Johnson developed acute symptoms and later progressive lung disease (restrictive disease, pulmonary fibrosis).
- Johnson sued Arkema for negligence and strict liability; Arkema moved to exclude causation experts under Rule 702/Daubert and for summary judgment.
- District court granted summary judgment after excluding causation opinions; court later reversed regarding Johnson’s acute injuries and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused Daubert gatekeeping in excluding causation experts | Johnson argues MBTC/HC1 can cause lung disease; relies on expert data. | Arkema argues exclusion is proper due to lack of reliable data; no general causation. | No abuse; Daubert gatekeeping affirmed. |
| Whether Dr. Grodzin’s differential diagnosis salvages causation evidence | Differential diagnosis could establish specific causation. | Without general causation evidence, differential diagnosis cannot sustain specific causation. | Exclusion upheld; no valid general causation evidence. |
| Whether temporal proximity alone suffices for causation of chronic injury | Strong temporal link supports causation without expert testimony. | Guevara/Morgan require expert support for chronic injuries. | Temporal link insufficient; expert testimony required for chronic injuries. |
| Whether co-worker illnesses provide circumstantial proof sufficient for causation | Co-worker injuries support causation. | No Texas case law removing need for expert; Curtis guidance not met. | Not sufficient to defeat summary judgment. |
| Whether Johnson’s acute injuries require expert causation proof; reversal/remand on acute injuries | Acute injuries followed exposure; expert not necessary to prove causation. | Acute injuries may still require expert support. | Acute-injury claims reversed and remanded for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (gatekeeping for reliable, relevant scientific testimony)
- Curtis v. M & S Petroleum, Inc., 174 F.3d 661 (5th Cir. 1999) (Daubert reliability and relevance; broad discretion for district courts)
- Moore v. Ashland Chem., Inc., 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998) (reliability of expert methods; scientific basis required)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (S. Ct. 1997) (analytical fit between data and opinion; rejection of weak extrapolation)
- Knight v. Kirby Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2007) (two-step general causation then specific causation; differential diagnosis context)
- Allen v. Pa. Eng’g Corp., 102 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 1996) (regulatory guidelines not per se reliable in toxic torts; animal data require qualification)
- Wells v. Smith-Kline Beecham Corp., 601 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard for evaluating expert testimony in toxic torts; reliance on reliable data)
- Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1984) (lay testimony can prove causation in limited circumstances with strong temporal sequence)