Opinion ID: 1964897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The relevant expert testimony.

Text: We do not agree with the defendants' assertion that there is no expert testimony linking the somatization plaintiffs' symptoms and injuries to the defendants' negligence. The belated emergence of the issue concededly makes the record less specific on the point than it might otherwise have been. Even so, there is significant expert evidence supporting a finding of causation. Dr. Iris Bell, a psychiatrist and psychopharmacologist, was called by the plaintiffs as an expert witness. Dr. Bell testified that the plaintiffs suffered neurological symptoms as a result of their exposure to contaminants during the renovations of the Waterside Mall. It is noteworthy that the term neurological was also used by two defense experts who went on to testify that the plaintiffs were suffering from a somatoform disorder. As the plaintiffs logically argue in their brief, [t]he jury need not have been persuaded by Dr. Bell's opinion that the [p]laintiffs' symptoms were manifestations of a chemical insult to their brains to accept her opinion that those symptoms, which were not present before renovations, were caused by renovations. The testimony of several of the defense experts, including Dr. Sorell Schwartz, Dr. Abba Terr, and Dr. Phillip Witorsch, though generally favorable to the defendants, nevertheless recognized the existence of a causal link between the plaintiffs' somatization disorder and the conditions at the Waterside Mall. These witnesses testified, in essence, that the plaintiffs' symptoms were the product of odorant conditioning, a process by which an unpleasant reaction to noxious chemicals or odors causes a person to associate similar odors with that adverse physical reaction. As a consequence, such an individual may subsequently experience the same physical reaction if he or she is exposed to otherwise harmless substances and odors associated with the earlier exposure. According to these defense experts, the plaintiffs' exposure to contaminants at the EPA headquarters was capable of causing acute physical discomfort and of generating the plaintiffs' subsequent adverse reactions to substances and odors which otherwise would not have adversely affected the plaintiffs. Indeed, according to Dr. Schwartz, it was a likely explanation that the conditions during renovation triggered the odorant conditioning process which produced the plaintiffs' symptoms. Dr. Schwartz explained: [W]ith certain of these organic solvents, there  there is what we call  a prodromal or earlier effect, at a lower  at lower levels. The effect may be headache. It may be nausea. It may be eye irritation. It may be throat irritation. This  it causes  it's annoying and it causes discomfort. [Whether] [t]hese are ... toxic effects is somewhat of a semantic question. They are reversible effects, but still individuals identify certain odors with certain conditions. And, it's not unlike hearing music that you heard as a teenager, with your favorite girlfriend, and it reminds [you] of things. There are  there are types of responses, and the same thing occurs with odors. In fact, there is something called behavior [odorant] conditioning, which is now recognized, where individuals have had negative experiences due to various types of exposures, and just detecting the odor will make them  they will feel bad.... So, it's a  it's  that's what we call odor and [sic] conditioning behavior, [odorant] conditioning. And, if you've had a bad experience with it, if you have had a food and you ate that food, and even one that you liked, and became nauseated afterwards, for whatever reasons, you might have gotten sick for some other reason, then the odor of that food later on, may actually ... make you nauseated. (Emphasis added.) [11] Dr. Schwartz further testified that exposure to organic solvents during the renovation of the Waterside Mall may have caused the plaintiffs temporary acute discomfort, and that this discomfort may have set off the odorant conditioning process. He stated that the odors and irritation might be annoying, cause some headache, nausea, and such like that and that if you're referring to the fact that they find chemicals to cause them to be, odors of chemicals to cause them to be disporic or have a sense of poor being, I would say that the time of renovation apparently had an impact. Dr. Schwartz gave testimony particularly relevant to the issue of causation when he was asked by defense counsel about symptoms reported by one of the somatization plaintiffs, Samuel Shapiro: I mean, if, in fact, he at one time, was very annoyed, had a headache and working in the environment was very unpleasant for him and he identified that with these odors, that he detected during renovation, then it's not inconceivable that smelling the same odors in other things, such as nail polish, magic markers, Wite-out, and so forth will trigger  will trigger the same response. It's just a common thing to occur. On cross-examination, Dr. Schwartz elaborated: Q: Now, you talk about odors. Are you telling this jury that a bad experience in this building during renovations has set off some reaction where these people just react to odors? Is that what you're saying? A: No. I didn't say that at all. I said that that is a likely explanation. (Emphasis added.) Finally, Dr. Karen Bolla, a chemical neuropsychologist who had treated Joanne Bahura, was called as a witness for the defendants. In May 1988, Dr. Bolla wrote in her evaluation that Ms. Bahura's depression appears to be the result of her occupational disorder. At trial, Dr. Bolla testified that Ms. Bahura's symptoms were not the result of toxic exposure at the workplace. On cross-examination, however, Dr. Bolla acknowledged that Ms. Bahura did not suffer from depression before she went to work at Waterside Mall. Dr. Bolla elaborated as follows: I think her depression was a direct result of her belief and her probably feeling ill in her environment, that some of these chemicals were irritants and hurting her eyes and her throat. So yeah, I think it was a direct result of walking into a situation where she didn't like being because of the environment. We conclude that the expert testimony that we have cited, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, cumulatively afforded a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it was more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant[s] was a cause in fact of the plaintiff[s]' injuries. Robinson, supra, 691 A.2d at 1150 (internal quotation marks omitted).