Source: http://www.weldingandgasestoday.org/index.php/2004/09/distributors-beware-new-lawsuits-filed-in-federal-court-name-distributors-as-defendants/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 21:06:15+00:00

Document:
After attacking manufacturers in welding rod litigation, an enterprising Louisiana lawyer has followed the progression of other toxic tort litigations and has fired the first shots at distributors, seeking to hold them liable based upon their involvement in trade associations. Claiming that distributors not only have liability for stream of commerce claims, lawsuits have been filed claiming that distributors are independently liable as part of an industry-wide conspiracy to conceal the dangers of the welding rods they were selling. Three new welding rod cases have been filed in which numerous manufacturing defendants are identified, but which also name “John Doe” defendants to include distributors whose identities will become known during discovery. These cases are being closely monitored, as adverse results will likely lead to the filing of many more such claims, opening the flood gates to many years of potentially crippling litigation for the industry.
While the Complaints are not cast as class actions, Becnel claims to represent thousands of workers who were exposed to manganese fumes. The three actions filed will no doubt serve as test cases for the remaining exposed workers.
In all three Complaints, the plaintiff alleges that at various times he was exposed to toxic fumes when using defendants’ products while working as a welder. The three plaintiffs claim that the welding fumes consisted of manganese, known since 1837 to be toxic to the human central nervous system if it exceeds the level typically found in the human body. The plaintiffs contend that the manganese exposure by inhalation has caused them to develop permanent neurological and physical damage that has resulted in symptoms similar to Parkinson’s Disease. They allege that they suffer permanent neurological, emotional and physical damage; pain; loss of wages, earning capacity and the ability to enjoy life; and mounting medical expenses as the direct and proximate result of exposure to welding rod fumes.
Fed. R. Evid. 702 now incorporates the Daubert reliability requirements. The Dec. 1, 2000, amendment to FRE 703 specifically provides that an expert may testify if: (1) the proffered testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the particular case at hand. It is important to note that a trial court’s role is not to test the expert’s conclusion, but rather his or her methodology in arriving at that conclusion.
The non-judicial uses to which the method has been put.
While expert testimony is usually challenged by a motion in limine, filed under Fed R. Evid. 104,18 summary judgment has been obtained in at least one reported decision involving a welding rod case: Burleson v. Nolan Glass, et al., 268 F. Supp. 2d 699 (W.D. Texas 2003). In Burleson, the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, granted a defense motion for summary judgment based upon its finding that the plaintiff ’s expert was unreliable pursuant to Rule 702 of the Fed. R. Evid.
Burleson sued the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Texas Correctional Industries, among others, claiming that the defendants were indifferent to his health when they allowed him to perform welding tasks using two percent thoriated tungsten electrodes during the two years he worked at the Boyd Unit’s stainless steel plant. This, he claimed, exposed him to thorium dioxide. He alleges that the exposure resulted in right, non-small cell lung and throat cancer as well as right tonsillar squamous cell (throat) cancer. Interestingly, Burleson was a 45-year-old, two-pack-per-day smoker with a family history of cancer.
After the District Court dismissed the defendants, the case was remanded from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals as to three defendants, finding that the District Court Magistrate Judge erred in finding no genuine issues of material fact as to whether the thoriated tungsten posed a significant health risk. The defense subsequently filed another motion for summary judgment, annexing two depositions of plaintiff ’s expert, Dr. Arch Carson.
Dr. Carson rendered an opinion that Burleson inhaled radioactive particles while engaged in thoriated tungsten welding operations at the Boyd Unit and that the inhalation of radioactive materials led to the development of his tumors. He termed this a “radiation hot spot” or “microscopic flux” theory, claiming that the particles he inhaled provided “a continual radiation hazard to the few local cells near it.” Using the Daubert trilogy and Fed. R. Evid. 702, the court concluded that because Dr. Carson could not pinpoint any epidemiological studies to support his theory and because his theory had never been submitted for peer review, the testimony had to be excluded.
Other factors which apparently influenced the court were Dr. Carson’s inability to indicate whether the “radiation hot spot” theory had any potential rate of error, the fact that Burleson’s chest cancer developed in the identical latency period for a heavy smoker, and the fact that both the lung and throat cancers had been directly linked to cigarette smoking. Based upon the amalgam of these factors, the court concluded that the scientific community did not generally accept the proposition that exposure to thoriated tungsten welding rods causes cancer. The Court also excluded Dr. Carson’s testimony on relevancy grounds, i.e., the expert had not determined the radiation dose to which Burleson was subjected, and since his “radiation hot spot” theory assumes a high dose, the evidence used to support the hypothesis was not reliable. The Court found that Dr. Carson was relying upon speculation and guesswork to support his theory and opinions.
The causes of action asserted against the welding rod manufacturers and distributors are varied. With novel and unique claims being asserted by aggressive attorneys, more attention is being paid by manufacturers and distributors and their insurers to the issues involving coverage for such claims. Timely notice and pollution exclusions are two issues likely to be areas where disputes may arise and manufacturers and distributors must be aware of their rights and obligations. At least one insurer has commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking an adjudication of its rights under the policy which it issued to a distributor based upon the “Total Pollution Exclusion.” See U.S. Fire Insurance Co. v. Clendenin Bros., No.03-3308 (D.Md). This case is being closely watched as more litigation involving welding rods emerges.
1 LeBlanc v. Lincoln Electric, et al, No. 04-0738, W.D. Ala. (filed March, 26, 2004).
2 Blank v. Lincoln Electric, et al, No. 04-0971, W.D. La. (filed April 28, 2004).
3 Davis v. Lincoln Electric, et al, No. 04-0404, N.D. Ala. (filed Feb. 27, 2004).
4 See Blank Complaint, supra, at ¶7-8.
5 See Blank Complaint, supra, at ¶10-12.
6 See Blank Complaint, supra, at ¶41.
7 See Blank Complaint, supra, at ¶16-17.
8 458 U.S. 886 (1982).
9 46 F.3d 1284 (3rd Cir. 1994).
10 819 F.2d 693 (7th Cir. 1987).
11 468 So.2d 124 (Ala. 1985).
12 See GE’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss in LeBlanc, P.2.
13 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
14 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
15 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
16 See, e.g., Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
18 See, Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592.
Donald J. Cayea, Esq. is a partner in the New York City office of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP. Adam R. Bialek, Esq. is a partner in the firm’s White Plains, New York, office.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.