N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OGER B OTTS a

nd C AR OL B OTTS, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-35007

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01943-JLR
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

2, 2016 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB ER and B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd C U R IEL,** Distric t Judge
. R oge r and C arol B otts a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt to the gove rnm e n t . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, 

# FIL ED MAY16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Gonz a lo P. C urie l, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.

1and we re ve rse and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings c o nsiste nt with this disposition.

The distric t c ourt e rre d in finding tha t B otts fa ile d

to produc e e vide n c e from whic h a finde r of fa c t c ould re a sona bly c onc lude tha

t a sbe stos e x posure a t the Puge t Sound Na

va l Shipy a

rd (the “ Shipy ard” ) re sulting from viola tions of the Na vy ’ s m an da t ory

rule s a fte r M arc h 1970 wa s a substa ntia l fa c tor in c a

using R oge r B otts’ m e sothe liom a . S

e e Loc k w ood v . AC & S, Inc
. , 744 P.2d 605, 613 (W a sh. 1987). The distric t c ourt’ s vie w of the e vide nc e wa s unduly re stric tive in se ve ra l
way s. First, the distric t c ourt found tha t the re c ord did not e sta

blish the e xte nt to whic h a sbe stos e xposure a t the Shipy ard wa s due to viola tions of theNavy ’ s a sbe stos c onta i nm e n t

re gula tions. Howe ve r, e vide nc e in the re c ord shows tha t Na vy pe rsonne l did not c om

ply with the c o nta inm e nt re g ulations a fte r the y c a m e into e ffe c t in M arc h 1970, a nd tha t, ha d the c onta inm e n t re gula tions be e n c om

plie d with, the volum e and spre a d of a sbe s tos fibe rs on ships due to just re m ova l and
c le anup a c t ivitie s would ha ve be e n re duc e d by

90%. Se c ond, the distric t c ourt disc ounte d B otts’ Shipy ard-wide a sbe stos e xposure . Howe v e r, the re is e vide nc e tha t a s be stos-re l a te d work, inc luding
a sbe stos re m ova l, insta lla tion, a nd fa bric a t ion, took pla c e both on boa rd ships a nd
around the Shipy ard while B otts m a d e de l ive rie s to the shipy ard from 1970 to

21976. Unde r W a shington la w, e xpe rt “ te stim ony

tha t a sbe stos fibe rs ha

ve the
a bility to dispe rse ove r an e ntire shipy ard is suffic ie nt e vide nc e from whic h it
c ould be infe rre d tha

t” an individual who worke d a t tha t shipy a rd during tim e s tha

t
a sbe stos produc ts we re use d “ bre a the d the a sbe stos re ga rdle s s of whe the r [the individua l] worke d on the ships or only in the shipy ard.” Be rry

v . C row n C ork & Se al C o. , 14 P.3d 789, 795 (W a sh. C t. App. 2000). He re , Dr. He y e r so te stifie d,
and the Unite d State s ha s not c h a lle nge d the va lidity or a dm issibility

of his e xpe rt te stim ony . Se e Daube rt v . Me rre ll Dow Pharm., Inc
. , 43 F.3d 1311, 1315 (9th C ir. 1995); Third, the distric t c ourt found tha t the tim e fra m e of e xposure wa s only a one -m onth pe riod from

Fe brua ry to M arc h of 1971. Howe ve r, viola tions of the Na vy ’ s a s be stos c onta inm e nt re gula tions be g an in M arc h 1970, a nd the re is
e vide nc e tha

t, from 1970 to 1976, B otts spe nt a s m u c h a s 20% of his working tim e e a c h y e ar a t the Shipy ard. The re wa s e xpe rt te s tim ony tha t working for le ss tha

n a y e ar in tota l in a

shipy ard during this tim

e pe riod c ould re s ult in a

ny whe re be twe e n a two- to e ight-fold inc re a se in the risk of de ve loping m e sothe l iom a due to
a sbe stos e xposure . Thus, a finde r of fa c t c ould ha

ve re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha

t B otts provide d suffic i e nt e vide nc e of c a

u sa tion. Se e Be rry , 14 P.3d a t 795; Alle n v . Asbe

stos
3C

orp. , 157 P.3d 406, 409–10 (Wa sh. C t. App. 2007). 1 Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse the distric t c o urt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd re m and for furthe r proc e e d ings. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

1 Mc Indoe v . Huntington Ingalls Inc
. , Nos. 13-56762, 13-56764, 2016 W L 1253903 (9th C ir. M ar. 31, 2016), doe s not c om m and othe rwise . Not only wa s Mc Indoe de c i de d unde r m aritim e and C a lifornia la w, ra the r tha

n the W a shington la w a pplic a ble he re , but in M

c Indoe pla intiff fa ile d to provideany e vide nc e a s to the e xte nt of his e xposure to de fe nda nts’ a s be stos, e spe c ia lly

with re ga rd to the a m ount a nd dura tion of the e xposure . Id. a t *4–5. Mc Indoe a lso re je c te d the only othe r c a usation e vide nc e M c Indoe provide d— e xpe rt te stim ony tha t “ e v e ry e xposure to a sbe stos a

bove a thre shold le ve l is ne c e ssa rily a substa ntia l fa c tor in the c ontra c tion of a s be stos-re late d dise a se s.” Id. a t *5. Mc Indoe e xpre ssly distinguishe d

othe r c a s e s, like this one , tha t do not re ly

on the sam e ty

pe of “ swe e ping te stim ony ” a m ounting to a le ga l c onc lusion. Se e id. & n.8. 4