James Kershaw v. Princeton Properties Management, Inc., 824 S.E.2d 668

Delores Kershaw (diagnosed with COPD in 2011) and her husband rented an apartment at Highland Lakes (2012–2015) and alleged recurring indoor mold/dampness that aggravated her condition; plaintiffs submitted a private mold test showing high mold levels and photos/observations of staining and odor.
Treating physician Dr. Vosudeh Pai testified that mold exposure can exacerbate respiratory conditions and opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the apartment exposure exacerbated Mrs. Kershaw’s COPD, though he did not perform lab testing, could not quantify indoor vs. outdoor exposure, and acknowledged other possible triggers (smoking, incense, pollen).
Defendants moved to exclude Dr. Pai under OCGA § 24-7-702/Daubert and moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs lacked admissible expert causation evidence; the trial court granted summary judgment without ruling on the Daubert motion, stating Dr. Pai’s conclusions were speculative.
The Court of Appeals held the trial court failed to perform the required Rule 702/Daubert gatekeeping analysis before disposing of the case on summary judgment and therefore vacated and remanded for a proper admissibility determination.
The trial court’s separate finding that plaintiffs presented no evidence of property damage was not challenged on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dr. Pai's causation opinion was admissible under OCGA § 24-7-702/Daubert	Dr. Pai’s experience, treatment relationship, patient history, and general medical knowledge suffice; lack of testing affects weight, not admissibility	Opinion is speculative, unsupported by testing/clinical observations and fails Daubert reliability	Court: Trial court did not perform required Daubert gatekeeping; vacated and remanded for proper analysis
Whether plaintiffs presented sufficient expert evidence to defeat summary judgment on medical causation	Dr. Pai provided a reasonable-medical-probability opinion that mold/dust meaningfully contributed to exacerbation	No admissible expert proving causation; summary judgment appropriate	Court: Cannot assess causation on summary judgment because admissibility was never determined; remand required
Whether expert testimony must meet Daubert even if treating physician testifies from clinical experience	Plaintiffs: Treating-physician testimony may be admitted; procedural shortcomings go to weight	Defendants: Treating-physician opinion crosses into expert territory and must meet Daubert	Court: Rule 702/Daubert applies to medical experts; trial court must gatekeep
Whether lack of property-damage evidence precludes claims	—	Defendants argued no property damage evidence	Trial court’s property-damage ruling stood and was not appealed by plaintiffs

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (federal standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony, not only scientific)
Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Knight, 299 Ga. 286 (Ga. 2016) (OCGA § 24-7-702 requires trial court gatekeeping on qualifications, reliability, relevance)
McClain v. Metabolife Intl., Inc., 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) (trial court must ensure expert employs appropriate intellectual rigor; exclusion of unreliable opinions required)
Layfield v. Dept. of Transp., 280 Ga. 848 (Ga. 2006) (inadequate factual basis for opinion often goes to weight, not automatic exclusion, unless wholly speculative)
Lavelle v. Laboratory Corp. of America, 327 Ga.App. 142 (Ga. App. 2014) (vacating evidentiary ruling where record did not show trial court performed required Rule 702 analysis)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sutton, 290 Ga.App. 154 (Ga. App. 2008) (medical causation requires expert testimony based on at least reasonable probability)
Cartledge v. Montano, 325 Ga.App. 322 (Ga. App. 2013) (credibility and weight of medical expert testimony are jury questions absent Daubert-level unreliability)