Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30911

L AR RYS EA M AN P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. S E A C O R M A R IN E L .L .C

. D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct C ou rt f or t he E as t er n D i st r i c t of Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V

- 3354

B ef ore W IE N E R , D E N N IS, an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t L a rry S e a m a n su ed h i s f orm er em p l oy er D efen d a n tA p p e ll e e S e a c o r M a r in e , L .L .C ., a ll e g in g th a t it s n e g li g e n c e c a u s e d S e a m a n ’s b la d d e r ca n cer. T h e d i stri ct cou rt exclu d ed the testi m on y o f S ea m a n ’ s on ly
c aus at i o n e xp e r t a nd g r ant e d s um m ar y j u dg m ent i n fav o r o f Se ac o r . H o l di ng t h at t h e distri ct court act ed w i t h i n i t s di scr et i on i n excl u di n g t h e expert t e s t i mo n y a n d t h a t S e a c o r i s e n t i t l e d t o s u mma r y j u d g me n t , w e a f f i r m. United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30911

2 I . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS From 1982 unti l M ar c h 2003, S eam an w or ked as a c apt ai n aboar d s eve r al
o f S e a c o r ’ s v e s s e ls
. In 2 0 0 3 , S e a m a n , co m p la in in g o f h e m a tu r ia — b lo o d in h is
ur i ne — w e nt t o a do c t o r . The do c t o r t o l d Sea m an t o se e a ur o l o gi s t i f hi s ur i ne di d n ot cl ear. Th en , i n A u gu st 200 5, Sea m an w e n t t o a n i n fect i ou s di sease spe ci a l i stbe c ause of c ont i nued hem at uri a. Seam an t ol d t he s pec i al i sthe had be e n e xp e r i e nc i ng he m at ur i a and ur e t hr aldi s c har ge f o r s e ve n t o t e n y e ar s . The
s p e c ia lis t r e c o m m e n d e d th a t S e a m a n s e e a u r o lo g is t. W h e n S e a m a n d id s o in 2006, t he ur ol ogi stdi agnos ed Seam an w i t h bl adder c ance r . S eam an had
s ur ge r y, a nd t he c anc e r i s c ur r e nt l y i n r e m i s s i o n. I n June 2007, S eam an f i l ed t he i nst ant sui t i n di st r i c t cour t al l egi ng t hat
w h i l e aboa rd S eacor’ s vessel s he “ i n h al ed an d w as ot h erw i se exposed to a h ost
o f ha z ar do us a nd t o xi c c he m i c al s i nc l udi ng dr i l l i n g m u d, c aus t i c s o da , b ar i um s u lfa te , B a r ite , a m m o n ia , m u r ia tic a c id , a n d o th e r s .” S e a m a n p u r s u e s h is cla im
u n der t h e Jon es A ct an d general m ari t i m e l aw an d al l eges th a t h e devel oped b la d d e r ca n c e r a s a re s u lt o f t h e c h e m ic a l e x p o s u r e s . S e a m a n s p e c ific a lly
c ont ends t hat Seac or ’ s negl i genc e caus ed hi s i nj uri es . H e a l so al l ege s t hat S eacor had a du t y t o detec t hi s bl ad der cancer an d fai l ed to do so. S eacor si m u l t an eou sl y f i l ed m ot i on s ( 1) t o excl u de t h e t est i m on y o f D r. P erri P rell op , S ea m a n ’ s sole cau sa ti on ex p ert an d ( 2 ) for su m m a ry j u d gm e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, h o ld in g th a t D r . P r e llo p ’ s o p i n i o n w a s n e ith e r fa c tu a lly sup ported nor sc i en t i f i cal l y rel i able, excl u ded her t est i m on y. Th e court t h en gran t ed s u m m ary j u dg m en t i n S eacor’ s favor. S eam an f i l ed a m ot i on t o al t er or am e nd t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s j udg m e nt , w hi c h t he c o ur t de ni e d. S e a m a n tim e ly file d a n o tic e o f a p p e a l.N o. 08- 30911

Knightv. K

irby In land Marine In c. , 4 8 2 F .3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7); see Dau b er tv . 1 Merrell Dow P

harms., In c. , 5 0 9U .S

. 5 7 9( 1 9 9 3 ). Knight , 4 8 2 F .3 d a t 3 5 1 (inte rn al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed). 2 Id

. 3 Cu rt is v. M&S

P et rol., I nc. , 1 7 4F .3 d 6 6 1 , 6 6 8( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 9). 4 Allen v. Pa. En

g’g C orp. , 1 0 2 F .3 d 1 9 4 , 1 9 9( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 6). 5 I d

. (deman ding

n ot ju s tk nowle dgebut sc ie n t if ickn ow le dge) ; Atkinsv. F erro Cor p. , 6 534 F
. S u p p . 2 d 6 6 2 , 6 6 6 (M
. D. L a . 2 0 0 8) (c o n c l u di n g th a t th e r e wa s n o g e n u i n e i ssue o f mat eria l factfor tr ial beca use“ plai ntif fs [had] no t pro duc ed any expertt est imony or reportto estab lish that[] plai ntiffs: (1) were actuallyexposed to ah armfulleve l of th e ch emical, o r (2 ) we rep hy si callyi n

j u re d b yth e [c h em ic al] all e ge dly r el ea se d fr omth e pl a nt”( em ph a si s a dd ed)) , aff’d No. 08-30 295 , 2009WL 6057 43, at *1 (5thCir. Mar. 10, 2009) (per curiam) (unpubli shed) 3 I I . S TA NDARDS OF REVI EW

“ W e revi ew t h e di st ri ct c o u rt ’ s det erm i n ati on of adm i ssibi l i t y of

expert evi den ce un der D au bertf or a b u se o f d i scre ti on . ” “A tri a lcou rt ab u ses i ts 1 d is c r e tio n w h e n its r u lin g is b a s e d o n a n e r r o n e o u s v ie w o f th e la w o r a cle a r ly
e r r o ne o us a s s e s s m e nt o f t he ev i de nc e . ” I f

t he t r i alc o ur t a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n, 2 t h e ha rm l ess errordoct ri n e app l i es, an d w e revers e t h e rul i n g on l y i f i t af fect ed t he s ubst ant i alr i ght s of t he c om pl ai ni ng par t y. 3 O nc e w e m ak e t he nec e s s ar y e vi de nt i ar y de t e r m i nat i o ns , “ [ t ] he n, w i t h t he
r e c o r d d e f

i n e d , we mu s t r e v i e w de no vo t h e order gr an t i n g j u dg m en t as a m att er o f la w .” 4 III . A N A L Y S IS A. Exc l us i on o f

D r . Pr e l l op’ s Tes t i m ony 1. A ppl i cabl e Law

“ Sc i e nt i f

i c kno w l e dg e o f

t he ha r m f

ull e ve lo f

e xp o s ur e t o a c he m i c al , pl us k n ow l ed ge tha t t h e p l a i n ti ff w a s ex p ose d to su ch q u a n ti ti es, a re m i n i m a lfa cts
n e c e s s a r y to s u s ta in th e p l a i n t i ffs ’ b u r d e n in a to x ic to r t c a s e .” Ap la in tiff in 5
s uc h a c as e c anno t e xp e c t l ay fac t
- f i nde r s t o und e r s t and m e di c alc aus at i o n; e xp e r t t e s t i m o ny i s t hus r e qui r e d t o e s t ab l i s h c aus at i o n. 6N o. 08- 30911

(“Be cau se plai ntiffs presented no expert testimony in support of cau satio n, ther e i s noerror in the su mm ary judgm ent . . . .” (cit ing A l len , 102 F .3 d a t 1 9 9)) ; see Templetv. HydroChem In c. , 36 7 F .3d 4 73, 484n .15 (5th Cir. 200 4) (Denni s, J., dissenting) (emph asiz ing th e n eed for expe rtt es ti mo nyt o pr ove ac om pl ext oxict ort ca se); Wi lls v. Amerada Hess C orp. , 379F. 3d 3 2 , 5 0( 2 d C ir
. 2 0 0 4) (“Ab se nt adm iss ible e xpe rtt es ti mo nyo nth e is su e of c a u sati on , [a pl aintiff i s] u n ab let o su st ainh erb u rd ent o pr ove cau sati on .”). Knight , 4 8 2 F .3 d a t 3 5 1 ( em ph a se s a dd ed). 7 Id

. 8 Unit ed States v. Fu llwood , 342 F
. 3 d4 0 9 , 4 1 2 (5thCir. 2003) (cit ing F ED . R. E V ID . 9 1 0 4 (a), c mt .) ; Moore v. Ashlan d Ch em. I nc. , 1 5 1 F .3 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 6( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 8) (e nb a n c)

. 4 C ou rt s use “ a tw o- st ep p roces s i n ex am i n i n g t h e a dm i ssibi l i t y of causati on evi den ce i n t oxi c t ort cases . Fir st , t h e d i st ri ct court m u st deter m i n e w h et h er t h ere i s general cau sat i on . S e c o n d , if i t c o n c l u d e s th a t t h e r e is a d m is s ib le g e n e r a l-c a u s a tio n e v id e n c e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m u s t d e te r m in e w h e th e r th e r e is ad m i ssi bl e specif

i c- cau sat i on evi den ce. ” “ G en e ra l ca u sati on i s w h et h er a 7 subs t ance i s c apabl e o f c ausin g a p a rt i c ul ar i nj ury orc ondi t i on i n t he ge ner al popul at i on, w hi l e spe c i f i c c ausat i on i s w het her a s ubst ance c ause d a par t i c ul ar in d iv id u a l’ s inju r y .” 8 A t t em pti n g t o est abli sh t h ese requ i si t e fact s, Sea m an prof fered t h e report
a n d de p ositi on testi m on y o f D r. P erri P rell op , h i s on l y m ed i ca l -cau sa ti on ex p ert. A s t h e propon en t of D r. P rel l op’ s test i m on y, Sea m an ha d the bu rden of
es t abl i shi ng by a pre ponder ance of t he e v i d e nc e t ha tt he p r o f f e r ed t es t i m ony w as ad m i ssib le. Adi st ri ct court assess es expert t est i m on y u n der F ederal R u l e of

9 E vi denc e 7 02: I f s c i e nt i f i c , t e c hni c al , o r o t he r s pe c i al i z e d kno w l e dg e w i l la s s i s t t he tr ie r o f fa c t t o u n d e r s ta n d th e e v id e n c e o r to d e te r m in e a fa c t in is s u e , a w itn e s s q u a lifie d a s a n e x p e r t b y k n o w le d g e , sk ill, exp eri en ce, t rai n i n g, or edu cat i on , m ay test ify th e reto i n t h e f orm of an opi n i on or ot h erw ise, i f ( 1) t h e t est i m on y i s based u pon s u ffic ie n t fa c ts o r d a ta , ( 2 ) th e te s tim o n y is th e p r o d u c t o f r e lia b leN o. 08- 30911

F ED . R. E V ID . 70 2. 10 AdvisoryCommitteeNotes to F ED . R. E V ID . 702 (200 0 Amend me nts ) (c itin g Daubert , 11 5 0 9U .S

. 5 7 9( 1 9 9 3 ))

.

Allen v. Pa. En

g’g C orp. , 1 0 2 F .3 d 1 9 4 , 1 9 6( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 6) (qu ot a ti ono mitt ed). 12 Knight , 48 2 F .3d at 3 54 (empha sis a dded) 13 I d

. at 352 (quo ting Daubert , 5 0 9U .S

. a t 5 8 9 , 5 9 2

– 9 3 ) (i nte rn al citati on s o mitt ed). 14 I d

. a t 3 5 5 (inte rn al qu ot a ti onmark s o mitt ed). 15 5 pr i nc i pl e s a nd m e t ho ds , a nd ( 3) t he w i t ne s s ha s a ppl i e d t he pri n ci pl es and m et h ods rel i ably t o t h e fact s of t h e case. 10 R u le 7 0 2 w a s m o s tr e c e n t ly a m e n d e d in 2 0 0 0 in r e s p o n s e to th e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’s de c i s i o n i n D au bertv. Merr el lD ow Ph arm aceuti cal s, I n c. , w hi c h “ c harge d t r i al ju d g e s w ith th e re s p o n s ib ility o f a c tin g a s g a te k e e p e r s to e x c lu d e u n r e lia b le exp ert t est i m on y. ” P u rsuan t t o D au bert , a t r i alc o ur t e ns ur e s t hatt e s t i m o ny 11 i s “ s upp o r t e d b y ap pr o pr i at e v al i da t i o n — i
. e. , ‘ g o o d g r o u n d s ,’b a s e d o n w h a t is kn ow n . ” A n d, “ a dis t ri ct court ha s br o ad d i s c r e t i o n t o deter m i n e w h et h er a

12 b o d y o f e v id e n c e r e li e d u p o n b y a n e x p e r t is s u ff ic ie n t to s u p p o r t th a t e x p e r t ’s
o p in io n .” 13 I n c ar r yi ng o ut i t s gat e - ke e pi ng f unc t i o n, t he t r i alco ur t “ e ns ur e s t hatt he pro f fer ed e vi denc e i s bot h ‘ r el i abl e’ and ‘ r el evant
. ’ R el i abi l i t y i s det er m i ned by
a sse ssing ‘ w h eth er t h e reas on i n g or m eth od ology u n d erlying th e t estim on y is sci en t i f i cal l y vali d. ’ R el evan ce depen ds u p o n ‘w h et h er [ t h at] reasoni n g or
m e t h o d o lo g y p r o p e r ly c a n b e a p p li e d to th e fa c t s in is s u e .’” 14

“ [ T ] h e expert’ s test i m on y m u st b e rel i able at each a n d every st ep or el se it is in a d m is s ib le . T h e r e li a b il it y a n a ly s is a p p li e s t o a l l a s p e c t s o f a n e x p e r t ’s t e s t i m o ny: t he m e t ho do l o gy , t he fac t s unde r l yi ng t he ex pe r t ’ s opi ni o n, t he l i nk b e tw e e n th e fa c ts a n d th e co n c lu s io n , e t a lia .” “W h e r e a n e x p e r t’s o p in io n is 15N o. 08- 30911

Paz v. B rushEng ineere d Mater ials, I nc. , 5 5 5 F .3 d 3 8 3 , 38 8(5thC ir
. 2 0 0 9); see K night , 16 48 2 F
. 3 d a t 3 5 5 ( s t a t i n g th a t if th e d a t a r e l i e d o n b y a p a rty’ s e xp e rt “f ail [ s ] to provide a ‘r el ev a nt’link w ithth e fa ct s at is su e, hise xpe rto pi nio nwa s notb a se d on‘ goo d gro u n ds ’”).

Knight , 4 8 2 F .3 d a t 3 5 4(inte rn al qu ot a ti onmark s o mitt ed). 17 Id

. at 351 (cit ing Daubert , 5 0 9U .S

. a t 5 9 3 ); see id

. at355 (“Di strictc ourt s m u st 18 care fully analy ze the studie s on whichexperts r elyfor their op ini ons befo re a dmittin g their te stim ony .”).

Althou ghSeacor challe nged Dr. Pre llo p’s qualification s to rende r a n opinionon 19 cau satio n, the distric t co urt inste ad e xcluded the evidence u nder the Daubertstan dard. The distric t co urt also note d, ho wever , th at “[i]t is cl ear from Dr. Prellop’s depositionthat she h as no specific expertiseinth e causes o r diagnosi s of bla dder cancer.” Seamanv. Seacor Marine LLC, 5 6 4F
. Su pp . 2 d 5 9 8 , 6 0 1 n .2 ( E .D. L a . 2 0 0 8). 6 ba s e d o n i ns uf

f i c i e nt i nf

o r m at i o n, t he a nal ys i s i s unr e l i ab l e . ” St i l l , t he r e i s no 16 b r ig h t-lin e s ta n d a r d a n d w h e n a n e x p e r t “ o t h e r w is e re lia b ly u tiliz e s s c ie n tific
m et h ods t o reach a concl u si on , l ack of t extual sup port m ay go to t h e w ei gh t , not t he a dm i s s i bi l i t y o f

t he e xp e r t ’ s t e s t i m o ny. ” The Supr e m e Cour t ha s o f fe r e d a 17
n o n -ex h a u stiv e li st o f D a u b er t fac t or s t hat t r i alc our t s sho ul d c ons i d er: “ [ 1]
w het h er th e t heor y o r t ec hni que t he e xper t em pl oys i s gener al l y ac c ept ed; [ 2]
w het her t he t heor y has b ee n s ubj ec t ed t o pe err evi ew and publ i c at i on; [ 3]
w het her t he t heor y c an and has be en te st ed; [ 4] w het her the know n or pot ent i al
r at e of er r o r i s ac c e pt ab l e ; and [ 5] w he t he r t he r e ar e st and ar ds c o nt r o l l i ng t he te c h n iq u e ’ s o p e r a tio n .” 18 2. D i s t r i ct C ourt A ct ed W i t hi n I t s D i s cr et i on D r . P r e llo p , a ra d ia tio n o n c o lo g i s t w h o c o m p le te d h e r re s id e n c y in
r ad i at i o n o nc o l o gyi n 2 006 , h as ne ve r b e f o r e pr o vi de d e xp e r t t e s t i m o ny. She does n ot ha ve a pa rt i cul ar experti se i n bl ad der can cer an d i t s cau ses, an d, i n her
c a r e e r , h a s o n ly t r e a te d t h r e e p a tie n ts d ia g n o s e d w ith b la d d e r ca n c e r . S h e is 19 al s o t he s i s t e r - i n- l aw of Se am an’ s t r i alc o uns e l( w ho c o nt i nue s t o r epre s e nt Seam an i n t he i nst ant appeal)

. D r . P r el l op s ubm i t t ed a t w o- page r epo r t t hat
c o n c lu d e d :N o. 08- 30911

Accordi ngto Dr. Prell op, Feroxcontai ns the aromatic hy drocarbon s be nz ene , xyl ene , 20 and ethylbe nz ene .

Seaman , 56 4 F . Su pp. 2d at 604
. 21 7 M r . Se am an’ s hi s t o r y o f o c c u p at i o nale xp o s ur e t o di e s e le xha us t a nd c he m i ca l s i n cl u d i n g a rom at i c hydr oc ar bons [ , par t i c ul ar l y a c hem i c al c a l l e d F e r o x , ] p u t h i m a t i n c r e a s e d r i s k f o r b l a d d e r c a n c e r . O f course, w e coul d never be cert ai n t h at t h ese oc cup ati on al exposu res w er e t he def

i ni t e c ause of M r . Seam an’ s bl adder c ance r but I have no i nf or m at i on s ugges t i ng t hat M r . S eam an’ s c ance r w as cause d by ot h er ext erna l agen t s. D r . P r e ll o p b a s e d h e r o p in io n o n (1 ) h e r “u n d e r s t a n d [ i n g ] t h a t M r . S e a m a n ’s occupa t i on al h i st ory i n cl u des regular exp osure t o di eselexh au st an d exp osure t o Fe r o x atl e as t o nc e a w e e k, t w e nt y- s i x w e e ks pe r y e ar , o ve r m o r e t han a de ca d e ” an d ( 2) her determ i n ati on t h at M r. Sea m an ha s no ri sk fact or f or bl ad der cancer, e. g. , sm oking, fam i l y h i st ory, or age, ot h er t h an h i s m al e gen der. To ar r i ve a t he r c o nc l us i o n, D r . Pr e l l o p r e vi e w e d Se am an’ s d eposi t i o n a nd
me d i c a l r e c o r d s , t h e ma t e r i a l s a fe t y d a t a s h e e t ( “ MS D S ” ) f o r F e r o x , a n d t wo

20 schol arl y art i cl es abo u t t h e r i sk fact ors f or bl ad der cancer. Sh e nev er s aw or spok e w i t h Sea m an , w h ose c om pl ai n t an d d eposi t i on t estim o n y m en t i on ed
n ot h i n g abou t ei t h er Ferox or di eselexh au st
. D r. P rel l op ba sed h er

“ u n derst an di n g” of

Sea m an ’ s r egu l ar e x p o su re to F erox an d d i eselexh au st on
n ot h i n g m ore t h an t h e sugg est i on t o he r b y S e a m an ’ s c ou n selt h at another S e a c o r e m p lo y e e s a id th a t S e a m a n h a d b e e n e x p o s e d to th e s u b s ta n c e s . Th e di st r i c t c our t det er m i ned t hat D r . Pre l l op’ s as sum pt i on o f r egul ar e x p o s u r e w ith o u t a n y “fa c ts u p o n w h ic h D r . P r e llo p co u ld h a v e p o s s ib ly
s u r m is e d e x p o s u r e le v e ls , re n d e r e d h e r ca u s a tio n o p in io n m e r e g u e s s w o r k .” 21 T h e cou rt a l so n ot ed t h at D r. P rel l op n ever di scussed, i n ei t h er her r eport or her dep osi t i on t est i m on y, t h e st u di es on w h i ch h er t w o ci te d j ou rna lart i cl es w ereN o. 08- 30911

Id

. 22 Id

. 23 See Allen v. Pa. En

g’g C orp. , 10 2 F .3d 1 94, 197(5th Cir. 1 996) (noti ngthat cau satio n 24 evidence o f ca ncergene rally — rather tha n the specific ca ncerfrom whichth e pl aintiff suffers

— isi n suff

ic ie nt)

. See id. at 1 9 9( maki n gc le a r th a t su chash ow in gi s r equ ir ed). 25 See id. at19 5. 26 Sa n dr aM. Olfe rte t al. , Updat ed Review , 99S. M ED . J
. 1 2 5 6( 2 0 0 6). 27 Xife n gWue t al. , Pro ject ing P robab ilities , 25J. C LI NI CAL O NC OL OGY4 9 7 4( 2 0 0 7). 28 8 bas ed. I n exc l udi ng D r . Pre l l op’ s t es t i m ony, t he di st r i c t c our t c onc l uded t hat

22 h er “ opi n i on i s nei t he rf ac t ual l y s upp o rt ed n or s ci en t i f i cal l y rel i able. ” W e agree 23
an d h ol d that t h e di st ri ct court act ed w el lw i t h i n i t s di scr et i on i n excl u di n g D r. Prel l op’ s t es t i m ony. H er e i s w hy. F i rst , D r. P rel l op d oes not est abli sh gen eralcausati on . H er Ferox-r el ated t es t i m ony r el i es on no sc hol ar l y stu d i es and m er el y r ec i t es her opi ni on t hat F erox contai n s arom ati c hyd rocarbons, w h i ch are kn ow n carci n ogen s. Y et , D r. Pr e l l o p m a k e s n o c o n n e c t i o n b e t we e n Fe r o x and b lad d erc ance r s pec i f i c al l y. 24 A n d, she provi des n o cl u e regardi n g w h at w ou l d be a h arm f u ll evel of

F erox exp osure. W i t h ou t som e show i n g of a “ st ati st i cal l y si gn i f i can t ” l i n k betw een 25 Fero x and bl ad d er ca n c er , D r . Pre l l op’ s t es t i m ony do es not es t abl i sh g ener al
c ausat i on f

or Fer ox. 26 A s f or her opi n i on t h at di eselex h au st causes bl ad der cancer, D r. P rel l op c ite s t w o a r tic le s a s s u p p o r t: A n U pd ate d R evi ew of t h e L i t erat u re:R i sk F act ors f or B l ad d er C an cerw i t h F ocus on O ccupa t i on al Exposu res (“ U pd ate d R evi ew ”), 27 and P ro jectingIn d ivid u a lized P ro b a b ili ties o f D ev el op ingB la d d erC a n ce r in W h ite In d ivid u a ls (“P roj ect i ng P robab i l i t i es ”). U pd ate d R evi ew i s an overvi ew 28 of bl ad der- can cer l i t erat u re w h i ch n ot es t h at on e an al ysi s f ou n d that “ [ w ] orkers
w ith h igh ex p o su re to d ies e l ex h a u st” (th e ter m “h igh ex p o su re ” is leftN o. 08- 30911

Updat ed Reviewat 1 2 6 1
. 29 See id. at12 61–62. 30 Pro ject ing P robab ilitiesat49 79. The Pro je ctin g Probab ilities model, however, still 31 requires “validation
. . . in anextern al popul atio n [as] an essential next step towards practical use in the clinicalsetting .” Id

.

Allen v. P

a. Eng ’g Cor

p. , 1 0 2 F .3 d 1 9 4 , 1 9 9( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 6); see a lso id

. (cit ing Wright 32 v. Willa m e tte In dus ., I nc. , 91 F .3d 1 105 , 11 07–08 (8thC ir. 1 996) (rej ectin g an expert’s tes tim ony that “w as notbas ed on any know led ge about w hat am ount s of [a chem ical] involve a na pp re ci ab leris k o f h a rmt o h u ma nb ein g s wh o b re a th e th em”) ). B u tsee Knight v . Kir by In land Marine In c ., 48 2 F .3d 3 47, 354 (5th Cir. 200 7) (notin g that n ot eve ry expert must b ack his opinionwithpubli shed studie s that une quivo cally su pp ort th a t op inio n). 9 und ef i ned) have an i ncr eas ed r i sk of bl adder cance r . T he ar t i c l e c aut i ons t hat 29
re s e ar c h o f

o c c upa t i o nalb l ad de r c anc e r i s c o m pl i c at e d b e c aus e s m o ki ng i s t he
m ai n ri sk f

or bl ad der cancer an d i t i s di f f i cul t t o separate bl ad der cancer caused by sm oking f

rom t h at c au sed by occup ati on al exposu res. U pd ate d R evi ew 30
m en t i on s nothi n g abou t t h e l evelof exposure t h a t o v e r t im e m ig h t in c r e a s e o n e ’s
r is k o f b la d d e r ca n c e r . T h e a u t h o rs of P roj ect i ng P robab i l i t i es c r eat ed a m ode lt hat w as “c o n s is te n t w ith d ie s e l e x h a u s t e x p o s u r e . . . h a v in g a s tr o n g e tio l o g ic ro le in [bl ad der cancer] , w i t h n u m erous st u di es show i n g an excess i n ci den ce of [bl ad der
can cer] i n t ruck d ri vers an d t h ose exp osed t o di esel exh au st s. ” Like U pd ate d 31 R evi ew , P roj ect i ng Possi bi l i t i es i s s i l en t on the l evelof exposure t o di eselexh au st th a t w o u ld b e s ig n ific a n t. T h e s e a r tic le s th u s d o n o t a s s is t D r . P r e llo p in
m ee t i ng Seam an’ s “ m i ni m al ” b u rd en of es t abl i shi ng by “ [ s] c i ent i f i c know l edge

. . . th e h a r m fu l le v e l o f e x p o s u r e t o a c h e m ic a l.” W ith o u t a n y fa c ts t h a t w o u ld 32 est abli sh the al l eged l y h arm f u llevelof exp osure ( or even som e l i n k to bl ad der
can cer) , as w ith h e r F e ro x op in ion , D r. P re ll o p ’ s o p in ion re g a rd in g d ies e l ex h au st do e s no t e s t ab l i s h g e ne r alc aus at i o n. N e i t he r do e s D r . Pr e l l o p e s t ab l i s h s pe c i f i c c aus at i o n. Se am an m ak e s t he
c o n te n tio n — w ith w h ic h w e d is a g r e e — th a t o u r o p in io n in Boc anegr a v . Vi c m arN o. 08- 30911

3 2 0F .3 d 5 8 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). 33 I d

. a t 5 8 6
. The plaintiff use d a separate accident-reconstruction expert to c onnect im paired 34 drivingability

to an increased likelihood of a crash

. Id. Id

. at58 8–9 0. 35 I d

. at 587–89
. 36 Id

. at58 9–9 0 n .5. 37 Id

. 38 10 S ervi ces , I

n c. m a n d a tes th a t a n y sh ortcom i n gs in D r. P rell op ’ s op i n i on go to i ts 33
w e i ght , no t i t s a dm i s s i bi l i t y. I n t hatve hi c l e - c o l l i s i o n ca s e , t he pl ai nt i f f use d a t o x ic o lo g y e x p e r t to te s t if y a b o u t th e e ffe c t s o f m a r ij u a n a o n a m o t o r is t ’s per c ept i on, r eac t i on t i m e, and ove r al ldr i vi ng abi l i t y. St r es si ng t hat “ [ t ] he r eal 34
w o r ld . . . d o e s n o t o p e r a t e lik e a c o n t r o ll e d s t u d y , ” w e h e ld th a t th e e x p e r t ’s t e s t i m o ny w as a dm i s s i bl e de s pi t e unkn o w n v ar i ab l e s r e l at e d t o t he po t e nc y and qua nt i t y o f

t he m ar ij uana i nge s t e d by t he def e nda nt
. I n B ocan egra , t h e reason

35 t h at t h ese un kn ow n vari ables w en t t o t h e w ei gh t an d n ot t o t h e adm i ssibi l i t y of t h e expert’ s t est i m on y i s becau se t h e recor d al so contai n ed s u f f i ci en t exposu re i n f orm ati on : It w as u n di spu t ed bot h t h at ( 1) bei n g h i gh on m arij u an a i m pa i rs p erce p tio n , v i z. , i t g en er a lly has t hat ef fec t , and ( 2) t he def

endant dr i verhad b e e n h ig h w ith in th e re le v a n t t w e lv e -h o u r w in d o w , vi z. , t h e specif i c e f fe c t
. We 36
c aut i o ne d t hatw e w e r e “ no t c o nc l udi ng t hata t r i alc o ur t m ayne ve r e xc l u de t e s t i m o ny i n a . . . cas e b as e d o n t he fac t t hatunkn o w n v ar i ab l e s r e nde r t he t est i m on y u n h el pful t o t h e j u ry. ” Inst ead , w e “ si m pl y [ h el d] t h at i n t h [ at] case, 37 th e v a r ia b le s d [id ] n o t u n d e r m in e th e e x p e r t’s te s tim o n y to th e p o in t t h a t it [w a s ] o f n o a s s is ta n c e to th e ju r y .” 38N o. 08- 30911

Our hol ding

in Cu rt is v. M&S

P et roleum, I

nc. , 17 4 F .3d 6 61 (5thC ir. 1 999) is 39 co n si st ent with th a t of Bocanegra . I n Cu rt is , althou ghth e pr ecise level of ch emical e xpo sure was unknown, therew as “sufficie nt info rmatio n of the l ev el” of e xpo sure, e.g., (1) abno rmally high, albe it im pr ecis e, re adin gs on an expos ure m eas uring de vice, (2) w orkprac tic es condu cive to h igh expo su re , a n d (3) in a de qu a tef a ct oryd es ign . Cu rt is , 174 F.3d at 671 –72 . Det ermining th a t th e expe rt ’se xpo su ret es ti mony wassu pp orte d b ymo reth a name re“pau cityo f fa ct s,” weh el d th a t itwa s a dm is sib le
. Id

. at 672 (cit ing Moore v. Ashlan d Ch em., I nc. , 15 1 F .3d 2 69, 279n .10 (5thC ir. 1 998) (enbanc) (que stioning as s us p ec t causati on testimony base d ona “p a u cityo f fa ct s”))

.

Se eA l len v . Pa . Eng ’g Cor p. , 10 2 F .3d 1 94, 198–99(5th Cir. 1 996) (discu ssingth e 40 shortc oming

of an expert opinion und er Fede ral Rule of Evidence 703 , which requires that if an expert reli es onin admissib le facts, theybeof a type“re ason ably reli ed o n byoth er e xpe rts in the fi eld” (c itin g F ED . R. E V ID . 7 0 3 ))

.

Th e re du ce d b u rd eno f es tab li shi n gp ro xim atec a u sei nJ on esActc a se s, see, e. g. , 41 Lan dry v. Two R. Drilling C o. , 51 1 F .2d 1 38, 142 (5th Cir. 1 975) (describin g the bur den as “feath erweight”), is irreleva nt to o ur hol ding
. The standards of reli abilityan d cre dibilityto determi ne the admissib ility of e xpe rt te stimonyu nder Daubertan d Ru le7 0 2 a pp lyr ega rdle ss whethe r ase a ma n ’sb u rd eno np ro xim a tec a u sati oni s r edu ce d. See Wills v. Amerada Hess 11 U n l i ke i n B ocan egra , t h e u n k n o wn v a r i a b l e s o f t h e i n s t a n t c a s e do 39 rend er D r. P rel l op’ s te stim on y u n h el pful

. D r. P rel l op’ s opi n i on i s based on
n ot h i n g ot h er t h an coun self or Seam an i n f

orm i n g h er t h at S eam an w as exposed t o F e ro x a n d d i eselexh au st “ at l east on ce a w eek, t w en t y- si x w eeks per year,
over m ore t h an a decad e. ” E v e n if r el i an ce on coun sel ’ s s u ggesti on w ere p erm i tted, D r. P rell op s ti l l h a d n o inform a ti on ab ou t t h e a m ou n t of ex p osu re to
w h i ch S ea m a n w a s su b j ected “at l ea st on ce a w ee k , ” vi z. , du rat i on, c o nc e nt r at i o n, a nd o t he r c i r c um s t anc e s o f t he e xp o s ur e . She pr o vi de d no t hi ng th a t w o u ld o ffe r th e fa c t-f in d e r a clu e a s t o S e a m a n ’ s e x p o s u r e t o th e a lle g e d ly d a n g e r o u s ch e m ic a ls
. In short, D r. P rel l op’ s “back grou n d in f orm ati on concerni n g [ S eam an ’ s] exp osure . . . is so sadly l acking as t o be m ere guessw ork. Th e expert[] di d n ot rel y on data concerni n g [ S eam an ’ s] exposu re th a t su f f i ces t o sust ai n [ h er] opi n i on s” un der D a u b er t or R u l e 702
. D r. P rel l op’ s t est i m on y does n ot com e 40
c lo s e to e s ta b lis h in g e ith e r g e n e r a l o r s p e c ific ca u s a tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id not abus e i t s di sc r et i on i n exc l udi ng her t es t i m ony. 41N o. 08- 30911

Cor p. , 37 9 F .3d 3 2, 4 7 (2 d C ir. 2 004) (statin g this rul e a nd empha sizi ngth at the Fede ral Rules of Evidence and the applicab le standard of causatio n are “distinct issues and do not affect one a n oth er”) ( qu ot a ti ono mitt ed); see also Knight v. Kirby I nland Marin e I

nc. , 48 2 F .3d 3 47 (5th Cir. 2007) (ap plying Da uber t toa ne xpe rt ’sc a u sati ont es ti mo nyinaJ on esActc a se).

Gray Law LLP v. Transcon t. Ins. C o. , 560 F.3d 36 1, 3 65 (5thC ir. 2 009) (qu otin g F ED . 42 R. C IV . P
. 5 6 (c))

.

Id

. 43 Ar yai n v. Wa l- Ma rt StoresTex. LP, 5 3 4F .3 d 4 7 3 , 4 7 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 44 12 B. Sum m ar y J udgm e nt 1. A ppl i cabl e Law Ha v i n gd e f

i n e d t h e r e c o r d , we n e x td e t e r m i ne w he t he r s um m ar y j udg m e nt
w as pr o pe r . “ Sum m ar y j udgm e nt i s a ppr o pr i at e o nl y ‘ i f t he pl e ad i ngs , t he d is c o v e r y a n d d is c lo s u r e m a te r ia ls o n file , a n d a n y a ffid a v its s h o w th a t t h e r e is
n o g en u i n e issu e a s to an y m a terial fa ct an d tha t t h e m ov a n t is e n ti tl ed to j udg m e nt a s a m at t e r o f l aw. ’ ” I n m ak i ng o ur de t e r m i nat i o n, w e v i e w t he

42
e vi de n c e i n t he l i ghtm o s t fav o r ab l e t o t he no n- m o vi ng pa r t y, he r e , Se am an. 43

“ [ W ] e are n o t li m i t ed to t h e di st ri ct court ’ s r eason s f or i t s grant of

sum m ary j udg m e nt
. W e m ay af f i r m t he di s t r i c t co ur t ’ s sum m ar y j udg m e nt on a ny gr o und
r a is e d b e lo w a n d s u p p o r te d b y th e re c o r d .” 44 2 . Se ac or i s Ent i t l e d t o S um m ar y J udgm e nt D epr i ved of

D r . Pre l l op’ s t es t i m ony, Seam an never t hel es s urge s t hat
sum m ary j u dg m en t w as i m proper f or t w o pri n ci pa lreasons: ( 1) O t h er s ou rces pr o vi de s uf

f i c i e nt c aus at i o n e vi de nc e , a nd ( 2) t he di s t r i c t c o ur t e r r e d b y gr ant i ng su m m a ry j u d g m e n t su a sp o n te o n S e a c o r ’s p u r p o r t e d d u t y to d e t e c t S e a m a n ’s
c a n c er irresp ective of cau sa ti on by ch em i ca l s ab oa rd S ea cor’ s ve sse l s. In
r ej e c t i ng t he s e ar gum e nt s w e ho l d t hat Se am an fai l e d t o e s t abli sh a genui ne i ssu e of m a terial fa ct t h a t w ou l d j u sti fy de n i a lof su m m a ry j u d gm en t.N o. 08- 30911

See, e.g. , Allen , 1 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 9 9 ; Atk ins v. F erro Cor p. , 53 4F
. Su pp . 2 d 6 6 2 , 6 6 6(M.D
. 45 L a . 2 0 0 8), aff’d No. 0 8 -3 0 2 9 5 , 2 0 0 9WL6 0 5 7 4 3( 5 thC ir
. Mar. 1 0 , 2 0 0 9) (p erc u ri a m) (u n pub li sh ed).

We re-empha sizethat Dr. Pre llo p re lie d ononlyth e su ggestionof Seama n’s coun sel. 46 Th e co -wo rk er s e x ec u te d th eir de cl a rati on s after th e dates o f Dr. Prell op’s r eport and de po siti on , sosh e co u ldn oth av e re li edo nth em . 13 i . L ack of

E xp ert C au sat i on E vi de n ce S e a ma n f

i r s t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i mo n y o f Se a c o r ’ s o wn e xp e r t , D r . Ri c har d Ai r har t , e s t ab l i s hes bot h g e ne r ala nd s pe c i f i c c aus at i o n. O u r revi ew of

D r . Ai r har t ’ s de po s i t i o n m ak e s c l e art hathi s t e s t i m o ny do e s no suc h t hi ng and i nst ead f ul l y suppor t s hi s expe r t r epo r t , w hi c h em phasi ze d t hat h e w as “ u n able t o f

i n d an y di rectcarc i n ogen f or M r. Sea m an ’ s di sease based on t he e vi de nc e of

hi s re c o r ds
. ” The r e po r t f o c us e d o n Se am an’ s c hi l dho o d s e c o ndha n d e x p o s u r e t o c i g a r e t t e s m o k e a s a mo r e s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k fa c t o r t h a n a ny de m o ns t r at e d o c c u p a t i o nalr i s k. Dr. Ai r har t ’ s de po s i t i o n t e s t i m o ny c o nt ai ns t he fol l ow i ng r epr es ent at i ve st at em ent s: ( 1) di es elex haust has pot ent i al carci n ogen s i n i t bu t t h at “ [ w ] h en you l ook at h o w m u ch of a potenti al i t i s, especi al l y f

or bl ad der cancer, i t ’ s not proven ” ; ( 2) “ I t h i n k [ second-han d sm oke]
c a u s e d h is ca n c e r . . . . T h a t’s a lit tle s tr o n g e r t h a n m o r e p r o b a b le [ th a n n o t].
. . . I fe e l ve r y s t r o ngl y t hatt hi s i s t he m o s t l i ke l y c aus e o f [ Se am an’ s c anc e r ] ” ; a nd ( 3) i f Sea m an w o r ke d ar o und c ar c i no ge ns , i nf o r m at i o n abo ut pa r t s pe r m i l l i o n, l engt h of

expos ure , an d type of vent i l at i on w oul d al lbe rel evant
. In s um m ar y, t h e test i m o ny and r e po r t o f Se ac o r ’ s e xp e r t , D r . Ai r har t , do e s no t s upp o rt S ea m a n ’ s p ositi on at all
. D r. A i rh a rt’ s d ep ositi on d oe s n ot r ev ea lthe req u i sit e c aus all i nk be t w e e n Sea m an’ s ca nc e r and ei t he r F e r o x o r di e s e lex haus t
. A nd,
w i t hout adm i ss i bl e e xper t ev i denc e i n t hi s t oxi c - t or t c as e, Seam an c annot pr ove c aus at i o n. 45 I n an ef f or t t o e st abl i sh hi s expo sur e t o Fer ox and di es elex haust , Seam an poi n t s t o t h e decl arati on s of t h ree of

Sea m an ’ s c o- w orkers. E ach co- w orker 46N o. 08- 30911

Inth e absence o f compl ement arye xpe rt evi dence , we are skeptical that th e 47 de cl a rati on s o f layc o- wo rk er s m igh t b e of a nya ssi st a n cet o S ea ma n ’sc a se . See Wi lls v. Amerada Hess C

orp. , 37 9 F .3d 3 2, 4 9–5 0 (2 d C ir. 2 004) (“A bsent some tech nic al or p rofessio nal expertiseindete ctin g an dqu antifying toxic emission s, [thesea man’s] testimony was in suff ic ie nt toe st ab li shd os a g e a mo u nt. ”)

. See Lozano v. O cw en Fed. Ba nk, FSB , 489 F.3 d 636 , 641 (5th Cir. 200 7) (statin g that 48 ge nerallya distric t co urt mayn ot grant summary ju dgment suasponteu nle ss it gi ves the partie s t end ay s notic e)

. 14 su b m i tted a si m i l a r d eclara ti on tha t said: (1) S ea cor’ s ve sse lw a s su p p l i ed w i th F erox; ( 2) Sea m an a pp l i ed F erox “regul arl y, ” “usu al l y t w o or t h ree ti m es every w ee k ” us i n g a bru sh or a pn eu m a ti c sp ra y g u n ; ( 3 ) th e cre w n e v e r w o re sa fety gear; ( 3) ha l f

of t h e t i m e tha t the crew a pp l i ed F erox, i t di d so i n encl osed spaces; ( 4) Se am an i nhal e d di e s e l e xha us t f um e s e ve r y da y t hathe s e r ve d a bo ar d t he
v e s s e l; ( 5 ) t h e s m e ll o f d ie s e l e x h a u s t w a s n o t ic e a b le a t a ll ti m e s ; a n d (6 ) S e a c o r ’s
ve s s e l r o ut i ne l y c ar r i e d be nz e ne and ot he r che m i c al s . W i t ho ut ex pe r t t e s t i m o ny t o pl ac e t hes e de c l ar at i ons i n co nt ext , t hey do not dem ons t r at e t hat Seam an w as exp osed t o w h atever m ay be the al l eged l y h arm f u ll evel of

F erox or di esel
ex h a u st. 47 S ea m a n l a ck s com p eten t su m m a ry j u d gm en t evide n ce th a t w ou l d crea te a gen u i n e fact i ssue regardi n g t h e causati on of hi s c an cer. ii. S e a m a n ’ s D u ty -to -D e te c t C la im T h e d i stri ct cou rt dism i sse d all of S ea m a n ’ s cl a i m s ba sed on h i s fa i l u re to of fer evi den ce t h at exposure t o chem i cal s w h i l e aboa rd S eacor’ s vess el s c au sed h i s c an cer. Seam an asser t s, how ever, t h at S e a co r n ever sough t sum m ary j u d gm en t on h i s i n d ep en d en t cau se o f a cti on re l a ted to S ea cor’ s all eg ed du ty to di scover S eam an ’ s s ym ptom s i rres pecti ve of w h e th er Ferox or di eselexh au st
c a u s e d h is ca n c e r . A c c o r d in g to S e a m a n , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in gr ant i ng su m m a ry j u d gm en t su a sp o n te on t hi s i ss ue. W e ho l d t hat t o t he e xt ent t hat 48N o. 08- 30911

Seama n’s complaint offers almost no indicati on of this cl aim and merelyalleges th at 49 Seac or faile d to provide a safe pl ace to work an d to “ in ve s t ig at e, remedy, and/o r warnMr. Se a ma no f allh a z a rd s.”

See O’Hara v. Gen. Mot ors Cor p. , 508 F.3d 753 , 76 3–6 4 (5 th Cir. 2 007) (rec ogniz ing 50 a h armle ss erro r exceptio n to the ten-day notice rulew henth e n on-mov anth ad an adequat e opport u nity t o b ri e f th e i s s u e a n d t o p r e s e nt it s e vi d e n c e , i
. e . , n o t i c e wo u l d h av e s e rv e dn o v ali d purp os e) ; L ea t h er ma n v. Ta rran t C ou n t y Na rcot ics I

n t el li gen ce&C

oo rd in at io nU

n it , 28 F.3 d 13 88, 139 9 (5 th Cir. 1 994) (“B ecau se th e homeo wners h av e n ot i dentified a material fact issue reg ardi ngth eir [clai m], it would be a usel ess procedure to rev erse the [d]istrict[c]ourt becau s eitdi dn o tal l o w t e nd ay s t oe l a p s eb e f o r ee nt e ri n gs u m m a ryj u d g m e nt
. ”(i nter nal qu ot a ti onmark s o mitt ed))

.

See Ober v. Pen rod Drilling Co. , 7 2 6F .2 d 1 0 3 5, 10 3 7( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 8 4) (p erc u ri a m) 51 (dis cu ssin gth isgen er al duty). Ve ssels th at carrybe nz eneof gre aterth an 0.5% byvolu me a s bulk cargomust provide 52 medical monito rin g to those emplo ye es expec ted to be expose d to a specific quantityof ben zen e inagivenyear. See 4 6C .F .R
. § 1 9 7 .5 6 0 (b )– (c) (d et ailin gme dical- ex a mi n a ti onr equ ir em ents); se e alsoi d

. § 1 97.5 01 (outliningto whichvessels the requirement appli es); § 197 .505(defi nin g level s o f be nz eneexposure). I t i s unclear whe therSea man would have b eenentitle d to medical mo nito rin g. Sea man s ub m it t ed the reportof Joh n Edg ar, who de scribe d re lev ant safetyguide lin es a nd regulation s but whoal so co ncede d th at he ha dn o d ataonSea man’s actu al exposure . 15 a n in d e p e n d e n t c la im e x is te d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d i d n o t r e v e r s ib ly e r r in 49
r ej e c t i n g t h a t c l a i m. S eam an ’ s m em oran du m i n opp osi t i on t o S eacor’ s m ot i on f or s u m m ary ju d g m e n t d e s c r ib e d h is th e o r y re la te d to S e a c o r ’ s a lle g e d d u t i e s to d e te c t h is
c a n c e r a n d to p r o v id e h im m e d ic a l m o n ito r i n g . B y ra is in g th e s e is s u e s in h is opp osi t i on bri ef, Sea m an , w h o m ak es n o representat i on t h at he w as dep ri ved of
an opp ort u n i t y t o present add i t i on al evi den ce, pl aced them a t is sue f or s u m m ary j u d gm en t. 50 A ccor di n g t o S eam an , S eacor’ s du t y t o detecthi s bl ad der cancer fel lun der S ea cor’ s f

u n d a m en tal Jon es A ct du ty to p rov i d e a “reas on a b l y sa fe place to
wor k. ” Ev e n a s s um i ng argu endo t hat Seac orhad a dut y t o pr ovi de m edi c al

51
m oni t or i ng t o Se a m a n , he has of fer ed no sum m ar y j udgm ent ev i denc e t hat 52
w o u ld e s ta b lis h th a t S e a c o r ’ s a lle g e d b r e a c h o f th a t d u ty c a u s e d h is ca n c e r , i. e .,N o. 08- 30911

D a v is v. Odeco, In c. , 18F .3d 1 237 , 12 42–43 (5thC ir. 1 994) (requiring evidence o f 53 me dical cau sati on in a Jon esActc a sewh er e th e pl aintiff all eged , in t er

a li a , failur e to me dicallymo nit or).

Seam ana ls o ur ge s that th e di strict court erred in denying his moti on to alter or 54 amen d th e j udg ment. Det er m in in g that th at cont enti on is meritle ss, we affirm th e di strict court’s denialof Seama n’s motion
. 16 t hat Se ac o r ’ s no n- de t e c t i o n “ pl ay e d any pa rt— ho w e ve r s m al l— i n t he dev el opm en t of

hi s” cancer. N o one d i spu t es t h at earl y dia g n o sis o f bl ad der 53
can cer i s i m portant. A n d, Sea m an contends that Seacor w as at fau l t f or hi s not
rece i vin g trea tm en t f or blad d er can cer un ti l 2 0 0 6
. S ea m a n disreg a rd s th e fact, h ow ever, t h at he di d s e e a doct or f or hem aturi a i n 200 3 an d that t h e doct or recom m en ded seei n g a u rol ogi st i f Sea m an ’ s uri n e di d n ot cl ear. Y et , i t w as not unt i l 20 06 t hat Se am an s aw a ur o l o gi s t
. Se am an o f fe r s no e vi de nc e t hatr o ut i ne m e di c alm o ni t o r i ng w o ul d ha ve a l t e r e d hi s pr o gno s i s a ny m o r e t han di d s e e i ng hi s do c t o r in 2 003, pa r t i c ul ar l y gi ve n t hatSe am an had b e e n e xp e r i e nc i ng s ym pt o m s f

or se v en t o t en years bef ore h i s 2005 vi si t t o t h e i n fect i ou s di sease s p e c ia lis t
. A s S e a m a n h a s n o t e s ta b lis h e d a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l fa c t in sup port of

t h i s c au se of

a ct i on , S eacor i s en t i t l ed t o su m m ary j u dg m en t on al lof S eam an ’ s c l ai m s. 54 I V . C ONC L US I ON W e af firm th e di st ri ct court ’ s D au bert -b a s e d e x c lu s io n o f D r . P r e ll o p ’s expe r t t e s t i m o ny as unr e l i ab l e . W e a l s o a f f i r m t he c o ur t ’ s g r anto f s um m ary j u dg m en t i n favor of S eacor becau se S eam an fai l ed to dem on st rat e t h e presence of a d i sp u ted i ssu e of m a terial fa ct. A F F IR M E D
.