Opinion ID: 812107
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-trial motions and trial proceedings

Text: Henry Barabin was exposed to asbestos from 1964 through 1984. He was employed from 1968 until his retirement in 2001 at the Crown-Zellerbach paper mill, which used dryer felts containing asbestos supplied by 1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 2 Because of our determination that a new trial is warranted on this basis, we do not address the other issues raised on appeal. BARABIN V . ASTEN JOHNSON , INC. 5 AstenJohnson and Scapa. During his employment, Henry worked in various jobs that exposed him to the dryer felts that AstenJohnson and Scapa provided. Henry also took pieces of dryer felt home to use in his garden. In November, 2006, Henry was diagnosed with pleural malignant epithelial mesothelioma.3 It is undisputed that exposure to respirable asbestos causes mesothelioma. AstenJohnson filed a motion in limine to exclude Drs. Cohen4 and Millette as expert witnesses. The district court excluded Dr. Cohen as an expert because of his “dubious credentials and his lack of expertise with regard to dryer felts and paper mills. . . ” Additionally, the district court limited Dr. Millette’s testimony requiring disclosure to the jury that Dr. Millette’s tests were “performed under laboratory conditions which are not the same as conditions at [Henry’s workplace].” This limitation significantly diminished the strength of Dr. Millette’s prospective opinion. During a pre-trial conference, the district court reversed its decision to exclude Dr. Cohen’s testimony. The district court explained that in the Barabins’ response to the motions in limine, the Barabins clarified Dr. Cohen’s credentials, including that he had testified in other cases. The district court did not hold a Daubert hearing. See Daubert, 509 U.S. 3 Pleural malignant mesothelioma is a rare cancer that affects the tissue surrounding the lungs. See http://www.mayoclinic.com (last visited Nov. 6, 2012). 4 There was some dispute as to whether Dr. Cohen was legitimately referred to as a “doctor.” W e give him the benefit of the doubt because his correct title is not dispositive. 6 BARABIN V . ASTEN JOHNSON , INC. at 589 (setting forth the trial judge’s gatekeeping obligation to ensure that prospective expert testimony is reliable).