Jacobson v. BNSF Railway Company, 2:18-cv-01722

Plaintiff Teresa Jacobson sued BNSF under FELA for her husband James Jacobson’s 2015 death from renal (kidney) cancer, alleging workplace exposure to diesel exhaust, asbestos, and other carcinogens during his long railroad career (1963–2015).
James worked for Soo Line (1963–1976) and BNSF (1980–2015) operating diesel-powered equipment; wife reported strong diesel smell on him after shifts.
Plaintiff designated one retained expert, Dr. Ernest P. Chiodo (MD, MPH, CIH, multiple advanced degrees and board certifications), to testify on medical causation and liability; his report opined that occupational diesel exhaust and asbestos were significant contributing causes of the decedent’s renal cancer.
Dr. Chiodo’s report did not opine on BNSF’s knowledge of hazards, exposure levels, or whether BNSF failed to provide a reasonably safe workplace.
BNSF moved to exclude Dr. Chiodo’s testimony (Daubert) and for summary judgment; BNSF argued plaintiff lacked required industrial-hygiene proof of breach/exposure levels. Plaintiff focused on causation rather than negligence evidence.
The court granted BNSF’s motion for summary judgment because plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a genuine dispute that BNSF breached its duty (Dr. Chiodo’s report lacked required liability opinions under Rule 26), and denied the Daubert motion as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Dr. Chiodo’s medical causation testimony	Dr. Chiodo is qualified and his methods support general and specific causation	BNSF argued Daubert exclusion because methodology/causal opinions allegedly unreliable	Court did not resolve admissibility; Daubert motion denied as moot because case resolved on other grounds
Sufficiency of evidence on negligence/breach (industrial hygiene proof)	Dr. Chiodo can also opine about workplace hazards and breach; his qualifications suffice	BNSF: Rule 26 requires an expert report stating opinions on exposure levels and employer knowledge; Chiodo’s report contains no opinions on BNSF’s knowledge, exposure quantification, or breach—so plaintiff lacks evidence of negligence	Court held Chiodo may not testify about BNSF’s negligence (report fails Rule 26); plaintiff produced no other evidence of breach; summary judgment for BNSF granted

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (expert-admissibility framework)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and genuine dispute standard)
CSX Transp., Inc. v. McBride, 564 U.S. 685 (FELA causation standard—railroad liable if negligence "played a part")
Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (elements of negligence under FELA)
Far Out Prods., Inc. v. Oskar, 247 F.3d 986 (genuine-dispute standard in Ninth Circuit)
Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 816 F.3d 1170 (summary-judgment principles)
Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099 (showing absence of evidence of essential element)