76 F. Supp. 3d 747
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Defendants Crane Co., Marley-Wylain (Weil-McLain), Exxon/Mobil, Owens-Illinois face Daubert motions to bar expert opinions on asbestos causation theories.
- Krik seeks to introduce Dr. Frank, Dr. Brody, and Frank Parker to support Any Exposure/Each and Every Exposure and Single Fiber theories.
- Court applies Daubert and 3-part gatekeeping analysis under Rule 702 to determine reliability and relevance.
- Choice of law: Illinois law or maritime law yield the same substantial contributing factor standard for causation.
- Court grants exclusion of Any Exposure, Each and Every Exposure, and Single Fiber theories; partially grants Mobil’s challenge to Frank/Parker testimony; other rulings denied in part.
- Weil has been dismissed; MDL context discussed; decision focuses on admissibility of expert theories and case-specific exposure data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Any Exposure theory is admissible under Daubert | Krik argues Helsinki criteria; no safe exposure level requires Any Exposure. | Any Exposure lacks dose data; unreliable and not case-specific. | Any Exposure theory barred under Daubert and Illinois/maritime standards. |
| Whether Each and Every Exposure and Single Fiber theories are admissible | Experts can opine all exposures cause injury. | Treatises and methodology insufficient; risk of undue prejudice. | Both theories barred. |
| Whether Frank and Parker may testify about Krik's exposure to Mobil without relying on Any Exposure | Cross-examination should address theory; experts can testify on exposure facts. | Limit expert testimony to case-specific exposure facts; bar theory-based opinions. | Testimony allowed to the extent based on case-specific exposure, precluded to the extent tied to Any Exposure theory. |
| Whether admissibility rulings bind on MDL Schumacher precedent | MDL ruling supports admission of Any Exposure. | Schumacher is case-specific and not universal; not binding here. | Schumacher not controlling; rely on current record and Daubert standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (gatekeeping; admissibility standard for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (flexible application of Daubert factors)
- Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc., 689 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) (Daubert factors may be flexibly applied)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1997) (abuse of differential factors; appellate review limited to reliability)
- Schultz v. Akzo Nobel Paints, LLC, 721 F.3d 426 (7th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes any-level exposure from case-specific dose)
- Anderson v. Ford Motor Co., 950 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (barred Any Exposure theory; lack of case-specific exposure data)
- Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Tr., 424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005) (requires more than de minimis exposure under causation test)
- Thacker v. UNR Indus., Inc., 177 Ill.Dec. 379, 603 N.E.2d 449 (1992) (Illinois adopts frequency, regularity, proximity test for causation)
- Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir. 1986) (de minimis rule; more than casual contact required)