Opinion ID: 556426
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence Reviewed in This Case

Text: 37 Conrail's motion for summary judgment was based on the grounds that there was no genuine issue of material fact that Hines' exposure to PCBs or other toxic chemicals during his employment with Conrail caused his injuries. In particular, Conrail contended that Shubin's testimony on causation was inadmissible because his opinions were without foundation and the evidence is equivocal. 38 First, Conrail argued that Shubin had no clear evidence that Hines was ever exposed to PCBs before or during his employment with Conrail. Although Shubin suggested that Hines was exposed to the PCBs that were used as dielectric fluid in railroad car transformers, Shubin also noted that Hines never filled transformers with PCB fluid and never removed the fluid from the transformers. Shubin also presented no information regarding the presence or concentration of PCBs on any part of the railroad track where Hines worked, although he assumed that Hines was exposed to the PCBs that leaked onto track beds. 39 Second, the testing for PCB concentration in Hines' blood and fat showed that Hines had not been exposed to a greater concentration of PCBs relative to the general population. Third, although Hines implicates PCBs and possibly other toxic chemicals for his bladder cancer, Hines had also been a heavy cigarette smoker. Shubin conceded that individuals with comparable smoking habits have an elevated risk of bladder cancer and could also contract bladder cancer solely from exposure to cigarette smoke. 40 Furthermore, Conrail relied on two affidavits to support its contention that Shubin's opinions contradicted standard medical and scientific opinions on the effects of PCB exposure. The first affidavit, also filed by the defendants in Paoli, was signed by eleven medical doctors and scientists. They stated that based on their review of the literature on PCBs, no evidence existed for determining that PCBs cause cancer or other types of disorders, such as hypertension or cardiovascular disease. The second affidavit, provided by Kenneth H. Chase, M.D., F.A.C.P.M., whose practice involves the evaluation of persons exposed to PCBs, concluded that there was no evidence that linked PCBs to bladder cancer or to any of the other complications that Hines suffered. 41 In contrast, according to Conrail, Shubin provided no scientific or medical authority supporting his conclusion that exposure to PCBs was associated with any of Hines' ailments. Moreover, none of the articles he presented reported any epidemiological findings, apart from those that resulted from animal studies or from the Yusho and Yu Cheng incident, demonstrating that PCBs were a definitive carcinogen. 42 Conrail also emphasized that its expert, Chase, concluded from the PCB blood and fat level tests performed on Hines that Hines was not exposed to a greater level of PCBs than the general population. Furthermore, according to Conrail, whereas Chase had studies to support his conclusion, Shubin cited no reliable evidence to support his own. Shubin was also unable to conclude that any chemicals other than PCBs caused Hines' injuries because Shubin cited no medical or scientific references to support such an association and also did not indicate that Hines had been tested for exposure to any chemicals other than PCBs. 43 Conrail also argued that in order for Hines to recover under FELA, he must prove that his exposure to PCBs and other chemicals at work caused his bladder cancer and other injuries and that this causal relationship must be shown through expert testimony when it is beyond lay knowledge. Accordingly, Hines cannot prove causation unless Shubin's testimony is admissible which, Conrail contends, it should not be under the Federal Rules of Evidence. 44 For the reasons that we stated in Paoli, however, defendants' attempts to exclude Shubin's expert witness testimony in this case may not be warranted because the evidence that Shubin attempted to present here is identical, or directly comparable, to the evidence that he or others attempted to present in Paoli. Even more significant is the more lenient FELA standard for causation. 45 In addition, Shubin's intensive and personal investigation of Hines distinguishes Shubin's testimony from the testimony excluded by courts in a number of cases cited by Conrail where there was no evidence in the record that experts ever examined or tested the plaintiff (or assertions) at issue. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Dental Assoc. v. Medical Serv. Assoc., 745 F.2d 248, 262 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1016, 105 S.Ct. 2021, 85 L.Ed.2d 303 (1985) (emphasizing that economist's assertions cited no support in the record); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F.Supp. 1223, 1242-45 (E.D.N.Y.1985) (noting that experts who submitted affidavits never examined individual plaintiffs but instead based nearly all of their testimony on anecdotal information written by the plaintiffs and their attorneys), aff'd on other grounds, 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1234, 108 S.Ct. 2898, 101 L.Ed.2d 932 (1988). Finally, one of the major cases cited by Conrail to support its contention that expert witness testimony concerning PCBs should be inadmissible has, since the time that Hines' and Conrail's original briefs were filed, been reversed on this very issue. See Rubanick v. Witco Chem. Corp., 242 N.J.Super. 36, 576 A.2d 4 (App.Div.1990) rev'g 225 N.J.Super. 485, 542 A.2d 975 (Law Div.1988) (reversing trial court's decision to exclude expert testimony regarding an association between PCB exposure and colon cancer because trial court inappropriately concluded that expert lacked requisite education and training to testify and because expert offered a novel scientific opinion concerning causation).