Snizavich v. Rohm & Haas Co.
83 A.3d 191
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Decedent Joseph Snizavich worked for ~13 years as a pipefitter for Welsch, frequently at Rohm and Haas’s Spring House facility; he died of brain cancer in 2008.
- Wife sued Rohm and Haas (wrongful death/survival) alleging workplace chemical exposure caused the cancer.
- Rohm and Haas moved for summary judgment arguing Wife lacked expert causation proof; Wife produced Dr. Thomas Milby’s report.
- Trial court denied summary judgment, then granted Rohm and Haas’s Frye challenge and excluded Dr. Milby’s testimony after a hearing; summary judgment was entered for Rohm and Haas because Milby was Wife’s sole causation expert.
- The court found Milby relied on a University of Minnesota study showing elevated brain-cancer incidence among Spring House workers but that the study was inconclusive as to cause; Milby offered no scientific authority or methodology linking workplace chemicals to Decedent’s cancer.
- Trial court concluded Milby’s opinion was lay reasoning dressed as expert testimony, failed Pa.R.E. 702, and was therefore properly precluded; appeal followed and the order was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of proffered expert causation testimony under Pa.R.E. 702/Frye | Milby’s epidemiology/toxicology opinion that exposure at Spring House caused Decedent’s brain cancer is reliable and admissible; he reviewed medical/work records and the Minnesota study. | Milby’s opinion lacks scientific methodology, fails to cite supporting authority, and contradicts the Minnesota study, so it is unreliable and inadmissible. | Court excluded Milby: opinion lacked any scientific authority or causal support, was effectively a lay opinion, and failed Rule 702/Frye. |
| Whether exclusion of expert required summary judgment | Exclusion was erroneous; other evidence could allow factual dispute on causation. | Milby was Wife’s only causation expert; excluding him leaves no admissible expert proof, so summary judgment is appropriate. | Summary judgment for Rohm and Haas affirmed because plaintiff had no admissible expert causation evidence. |
| Standard for minimal threshold of admissible expert opinion | Expert may rely on experience/record review; Milby met minimal threshold by citing the Minnesota study and his expertise. | Minimal threshold requires citation or application of scientific authority (studies, data, literature); mere opinion without supporting authority is insufficient. | Court articulated minimal threshold: expert must point to or apply scientific authority supporting causation; Milby failed this test. |
| Comparability to precedents on admissibility | Milby is materially similar to experts in Checchio whose opinions were excluded for lack of scientific support. | Milby is distinguishable or sufficient like experts in Harris who relied on records plus literature/experience. | Court held Milby aligns with Checchio (excluded) not Harris (admissible); thus exclusion was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Checchio v. Frankford Hosp.-Torresdale Div., 717 A.2d 1058 (Pa. Super. 1998) (expert opinions excluded where based only on subjective belief and avoided medical literature)
- Harris v. NGK N. Am., Inc., 19 A.3d 1053 (Pa. Super. 2011) (expert admissible where opinion rested on records, experience, and identifiable supporting literature)
- Betz v. Pneumo Abex, 44 A.3d 27 (Pa. 2012) (appeal of final order subsumes challenges to interlocutory evidentiary rulings)
- Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003) (admissibility of expert testimony reviewed for abuse of discretion)