Two companies that provided asbestos-laced materials to a paper mill urged a federal appeals court to assess the reliability of expert testimony on cases of professional exposure to asbestos. The expert testified in an asbestos injury lawsuit filed by a former employee of the paper mill. If companies are successful, they can avoid a new trial in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, where a jury previously awarded $ 9.4 million to the plaintiffs.
Henry Victory legal Barabin
The applicant, Henry Barabin, alleged that he developed mesothelioma due to occupational exposure to asbestos. Mr. Barabin worked at the refinery and paper Crown-Zellerbach 1968 until his retirement in 01. During this time, he was exposed to asbestos dust felts dryers manufactured by Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. and AstenJohnson Inc. dryer felts were installed on paper machines used in the workplace Mr. Barabin. Mr. Barabin also took pieces of the house of dryer felts for use in his garden.
M .. Barabin was diagnosed with malignant epithelial mesothelioma in 06. He and his wife, Geraldine Barabin, continued AstenJohnson and Scapa. A jury ultimately awarded them $ 9.4 million in 09. Mr. Barabin died while his appeal was pending.
9th Circuit Snatches Victory Away
AstenJohnson and Scapa appealed the verdict on the grounds that the District Court did not assess the reliability of the expert testimony of the plaintiffs. They argued that the district court did not follow the guidelines for admitting scientific evidence established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , US 509 579 (1993). As part of the analysis Daubert , the trial courts assess the reliability of expert evidence based on several factors, including whether the technique or theory used by the expert can be tested.
The question of what particular the reliability of the expert actually came before the trial. Before a court admits expert testimony, the parties must provide details of the experience of their proposed expert and qualifications. But in this case, the district court was not initially satisfied that applicants had to say about their expert. In fact, the court excluded the expert because of his "questionable references and ?? lack of expertise in dryer felts and paper mills. "The district court later changed his mind after the complainants have provided more information about the credentials and the expert testimony he offered in other trials.
But according to the decision made by the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on appeal, the analysis of the district court was also questionable. the 9th Circuit held that the district court "abused its discretion admitting in evidence evil. "Although the trial court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently explained the powers of their expert, he has not held a hearing Daubert to analyze the scientific validity of the methods expert.
this does not mean that the court had to decide whether the expert testimony was good or bad. It is up to the jury to decide whether to accept that says an expert. But under Daubert , it is the job of the court to examine whether the methods and expert theories have been tested and evaluated by others in the scientific community. In this role, the courts are considered "keepers" that keep the "junk science" away from the jury.
In this case, the 9th Circuit ruled that the district court "failed to fulfill its role as protector." As a result, he threw the $ 9.4 million to the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the district court for a new trial.
Reliability of experts will determine ultimately result
it seems that the expert testimony played an important role in the first trial. Neither party disputes that the asbestos in the air particles can cause mesothelioma. But there was a conflict of expert testimony about the extent to which chrysotile asbestos fibers from the dryer felt contributed to Mr. Barabin injury.
The evidence offered by the plaintiffs focused on how Mr. Barabin was injured by fibers from the products of the defendants. But other experts said the exposure of Mr. Barabin to amphibole asbestos fibers of the insulating material used in the paper mill, rather than chrysotile asbestos from the dryer felt, could cause mesothelioma of the applicant. Apparently, their testimony was not enough persuasion to stop an award at the first trial. But it might be more convincing in a second trial if the plaintiffs' expert is excluded.
Ms. Barabin requested a new hearing after the decision of the 9th Circuit. During this hearing, his lawyer argued that the district court made an analysis Daubert during motions made at the beginning and after the trial. Meanwhile, the lawyer for AstenJohnson and Scapa asked the 9th Circuit to simply decide on the reliability of the testimony of the expert now, instead of referring the case to the district court.
The 9th Circuit heard arguments "of the two sides last month and is expected to make a decision in the autumn.
