Smith v. Csx Transportation, Inc., 343 Ga. App. 508

Plaintiff Earl Smith worked for CSX from 1980–2012 in multiple roles (flagman, track inspector, foreman) with varying physical duties; he claimed repetitive work and heavy tool use caused shoulder (acromioclavicular) arthritis and disability.
Smith had prior settlements for work-related back, knee, and carpal tunnel injuries and significant comorbidities (diabetes, obesity, rheumatoid arthritis, smoking, family history of arthritis) complicating causation.
Smith sued under FELA (45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.) in 2012; his expert orthopedist, Dr. Arthur Wardell, offered a specific-causation opinion attributing Smith’s shoulder arthritis to occupational activities.
CSX moved to exclude Dr. Wardell under OCGA § 24-7-702 (Daubert framework) and for summary judgment; the trial court excluded the expert as unreliable and then granted summary judgment to CSX for lack of admissible proof of specific causation.
On appeal Smith argued the FELA relaxed causation standard should relax expert admissibility and that his lay testimony sufficed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding FELA does not change OCGA § 24-7-702 standards and that lay testimony alone could not prove specific causation for a multi-etiology degenerative condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FELA’s relaxed causation standard lowers the admissibility standard for expert testimony under OCGA § 24-7-702	FELA’s relaxed causation means courts should admit expert opinions more liberally	Admissibility standards are statutory/Daubert-based and unchanged by FELA	Court: FELA does not alter OCGA § 24-7-702; admissibility unchanged
Whether the trial court abused discretion by excluding Dr. Wardell’s causation testimony	Dr. Wardell is a qualified orthopedist and his differential etiology supports causation	Dr. Wardell relied on plaintiff’s unquantified history, did not test or observe work conditions, relied on inapposite literature; methodology unreliable	Court: No abuse of discretion; expert excluded as unreliable
Whether lay testimony alone can establish specific causation for Smith’s degenerative shoulder condition	Smith’s own descriptions of work and symptoms suffice under FELA’s relaxed causation	Multi-etiology degenerative conditions require expert proof of specific causation; lay testimony insufficient	Court: Lay testimony insufficient; expert causation required here
Whether summary judgment was proper after exclusion of plaintiff’s expert	Exclusion was error; summary judgment therefore improper	Without admissible expert proof of specific causation, Smith cannot meet FELA causation element	Court: Summary judgment affirmed — plaintiff failed to prove specific causation

Bisnott v. Norfolk S. R., 338 Ga. App. 897 (Ga. Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
Norfolk S. R. Co. v. Zeagler, 293 Ga. 582 (Ga.) (FELA requires proof of traditional negligence elements)
Norfolk S. R. Co. v. Schumpert, 270 Ga. App. 782 (Ga. Ct. App.) (FELA relaxed causation standard explanation)
HNTB Ga., Inc. v. Hamilton-King, 287 Ga. 641 (Ga.) (trial court’s discretion to qualify experts)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (expert admissibility framework)
Bowers v. Norfolk S. Corp., 537 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (M.D. Ga.) (exclusion of Dr. Wardell’s opinions as unreliable)
Brown v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 765 F.3d 765 (7th Cir.) (need for expert investigation in cumulative-trauma FELA cases)
GE Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (analytical gap/fit requirement for expert opinions)
Moore v. Cottrell, Inc., 334 Ga. App. 791 (Ga. Ct. App.) (affirming exclusion where expert failed to investigate workplace)
Shiver v. Ga. & Fla. Railnet, Inc., 287 Ga. App. 828 (Ga. Ct. App.) (expert evidence necessary when causation is not obvious)
Phelps v. CSX Transp., Inc., 280 Ga. App. 330 (Ga. Ct. App.) (FELA liability for aggravation of pre-existing conditions)