Grimes v. CBS Corporation
1:17-cv-08361-ALC
S.D.N.Y.Nov 30, 2020Background
- John Grimes worked as an apprentice coppersmith at the Brooklyn Navy Yard from Oct. 1961–Jan. 1963; his duties included stripping insulation from copper pipe/tubing and working on ships (including the USS Constellation).
- Grimes observed valve work, gaskets, and insulation removal in boiler/engine spaces, saw some valves marked "Crane," and testified the spaces were dusty; he received no respiratory protection or asbestos warnings.
- Grimes later developed mesothelioma and died; Linda Phelps (administratrix) sued Crane Co. and others; expert discovery closed and Plaintiff produced experts: Dr. Gary Crakes (economic damages), Steven Paskal (industrial hygiene), Dr. David Zhang (medical causation), plus naval experts.
- Crane Co. moved under Daubert to exclude or limit those experts and moved for summary judgment arguing lack of defendant-specific causation and insufficient evidence that Crane products or associated gaskets/insulation contained asbestos or exposed Grimes.
- The court applied Fed. R. Evid. 702/Daubert and summary judgment standards, reviewed depositions, expert reports, and ship records/specifications, and issued mixed rulings: Daubert motions granted in part and denied in part; summary judgment denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Dr. Gary Crakes's lost-earnings projections | Crakes used Grimes's recent earnings (median 2014–2016), work-life expectancy (5 & 9 years), and national data for fringe/household values to calculate lost earnings and services | Crane says two benchmarks (2014 outlier and 2019 NY attorney median) are speculative; fringe benefits and some inputs lack factual foundation | Court excluded testimony based on the 2014 outlier and the 2019 NY attorney median and excluded fringe-benefits estimates; allowed median 2014–2016 benchmark, the 5- and 9-year work-life figures, and lost household services (fringe testimony excluded) |
| Admissibility of Steven Paskal's industrial-hygiene exposure ranges | Paskal derived exposure ranges from Grimes's testimony, naval expert testimony, historical practice literature, and his experience; ranges will be linked to assumed facts at trial | Crane argues Paskal lacks specific information about actual work practices and that ranges are therefore speculative and prejudicial | Court denied exclusion; Paskal's ranges admissible where based on facts that may be established at trial; gaps and assumptions go to weight, not admissibility |
| Admissibility of Dr. David Zhang's specific-causation testimony ("every exposure" vs cumulative exposure) | Zhang applies Helsinki Criteria and cumulative-exposure reasoning: no known safe level of asbestos, cumulative exposures increase mesothelioma risk; will opine on defendant-specific causation via hypotheticals tied to trial evidence | Crane argues Zhang gave no Crane-specific analysis in reports and relies on an unreliable "every exposure" theory | Court denied exclusion; Zhang may offer specific-causation opinions based on assumed facts supported at trial and may rely on cumulative-exposure methodology (challenges go to weight); court did not consider a later affidavit without further briefing |
| Summary judgment on specific causation and Crane-specific evidence | Plaintiff: testimonial, documentary, and expert evidence (Grimes, naval experts, Paskal, Zhang) create triable issues linking Crane valves/associated materials to asbestos exposure and disease | Crane: no evidence Crane valves on ships had asbestos gaskets/insulation or that Grimes was exposed to asbestos from Crane products; experts lacked Crane-specific analysis | Summary judgment denied; court found genuine disputes of material fact as to presence of Crane valves, use of asbestos-containing materials, and whether exposure from Crane products was a substantial factor in Grimes's mesothelioma |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeper for expert admissibility under Rule 702)
- Boucher v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 73 F.3d 18 (2d Cir. 1996) (lost-earnings projections inadmissible if based on unrealistic employment assumptions)
- Amorgianos v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (expert must reliably apply methodology; methodological gaps typically affect weight)
- In re New York City Asbestos Litig. (Juni), 116 N.E.3d 75 (N.Y. 2018) (under NY law court requires defendant-specific causation analysis for asbestos claims)
- Gumbs v. Int’l Harvester, 718 F.2d 88 (3d Cir. 1983) (criticizing lost-earnings projection based on an annual income much higher than prior history)
- Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547 (2d Cir. 2017) (Daubert is a permissive standard; challenges to assumptions usually go to weight)