Opinion ID: 1890354
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Similar Exposure to Solvents by Other Workers

Text: CSX asserts that the trial court erred by admitting testimony from Martine RoBards, a PhD neuropsychologist, [14] concerning a study that she conducted on railroad workers who were exposed to solvents. Relying on Burton v. CSX Transportation, Inc., [15] CSX complains that Moody failed to meet his burden to demonstrate the substantial similarity of what amounted to evidence of other claims. CSX argues that the evidence prejudiced its case substantially and warrants a new trial because it posed an improper risk of encouraging the jury to think that if other CSX workers were making the same sort of claims, then [Moody's] ailments must have also been caused by workplace solvent exposure even if there was insufficient proof of his individual exposure and a causal link to his symptoms. [16] Rulings on the admissibility of evidence in a FELA claim are left to the sound discretion of the trial court absent an abuse of discretion. [17] Much of the expert testimony in Burton concerned whether the plaintiffs symptoms resulted from toxic encephalopathy due to solvent exposure at CSX or from multiple sclerosis. Having failed to convince the jury that his symptoms resulted from solvent exposure, Burton asserted on appeal that the trial court erred by refusing to permit witnesses to refer to the fact that Dr. RoBards' study linked solvent exposure to brain damage and cognitive impairment in CSX workers. [18] Dr. Linz testified that Burton's cognitive impairment resulted from his exposure to solvents at CSX. He also testified concerning the findings of numerous studies of railroad workers or those affected by solvents. Burton argued on appeal that Dr. Linz should have been allowed to refer to Dr. RoBards' study subjects as CSX workers, which would have emphasized that the solvents he used at work could have caused his cognitive impairment. We affirmed, convinced that the risk of undue prejudice outweighed the evidence's probative value because Burton failed to lay a proper foundation showing that Dr. RoBards' study subjects worked under conditions substantially similar to his own. We noted that to identify them as CSX workers might encourage the jury to conclude that Burton's symptoms resulted from workplace solvent exposure, even if it considered his proof of causation to be weak, because co-workers made similar claims. The present claim differs from Burton because Moody laid a proper foundation for the disputed evidence.
CSX filed a motion in limine to preclude any testimony or reference to solvent claims and exposures of other railroad employees. The motion sought specifically to preclude both a 1978 injury report by John Newell, who claimed to suffer health problems after being exposed to Dow Cleaner, and the 1980 deposition of Tyrone Green in Newell's case. CSX argued at the hearing that Newell's exposure and symptoms were not substantially similar to Moody's. It conceded that it knew acute dizziness and headaches could result from an overexposure to solvents at the time of Moody's exposure but asserted that it did not know an overexposure could cause toxic encephalopathy. Moody asserted that Newell's exposure as a service attendant was substantially similar to his own. He argued that CSX planned to call its industrial hygienist to testify that service attendants were not overexposed to dangerous chemicals and did not require protective measures. Yet, Newell's injury and 1980 lawsuit put CSX on notice that a service attendant became ill from overexposure to dangerous chemicals while working in the South Louisville shops. The trial court denied CSX's motion but warned Moody that he must show a substantial similarity with respect to evidence concerning any other worker or risk a mistrial. The record indicates that the court did not abuse its discretion when admitting the evidence. [19] Moody offered evidence at trial showing a substantial similarity between his exposure and symptoms and those of Green and Newell. The record indicates that Newell became ill and was treated at the hospital for an overexposure to Dowclene while working as a service attendant at the South Louisville shops in 1978. His symptoms included abdominal pain and vomiting as well as dizziness. Green's 1980 deposition indicated that he and Newell used Dowclene together in the South Louisville shops; that they used Dowclene during the same period and in the same manner as Moody; and that they experienced some of the same symptoms as Moody. Green testified that he had worked as a service attendant at the South Louisville shops since 1974 and observed Newell experiencing nausea on several occasions when using Dowclene. He stated that Dowclene came in fifty-gallon drums and that he used it often, spraying it with a compressed air tank and hose or pouring it on parts and machinery that he wanted to clean. The chemical irritated his skin and caused him to be nauseated. Like Moody, he took frequent fresh-air breaks to avoid the fumes. Green stated that his symptoms lingered after he stopped using Dowclene; that he was never given any protective equipment; that he complained to his foreman about Dowclene's effects; and that he knew of no one who inhaled Dowclene who did not complain of symptoms like his own.
CSX's motion in limine sought to preclude Dr. RoBards from testifying at trial on the grounds that she was not qualified to testify to causation, Moody's ability to return to work, or whether he was disabled and that her testimony lacked the degree of scientific validity and reliability that Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., [20] requires. CSX reasoned that, as a psychologist, Dr. RoBards' lacked the qualification to opine as to the medical cause organic brain damagea neurological condition. Thus, her conclusions on the issue are the product of a flawed methodology, which relates back to [her] lack of qualifications. CSX stated at the hearing on the motion that while it did not object to testimony from Dr. RoBards indicating that testing revealed Moody's condition to be consistent with solvent-induced encephalopathy, she should not be permitted to testify that solvent exposure caused his brain damage because she is not a physician. Moody asserted that Dr. RoBards' findings were relevant to the question of foreseeability and agreed that she would not be asked to testify to causation. The Court of Appeals rejected CSX's Daubert challenge, noting that its argument appeared to concern the sufficiency of the evidence of causation rather than its admissibility. CSX disagrees, relying on Burton to argue that the trial court erred in admitting Dr. RoBards' testimony concerning her study because Moody failed to show a substantial similarity in the circumstances of the persons that she studied and also between them and Moody. CSX concludes that her testimony was substantially prejudicial and warrants a new trial. We disagree. Unlike the situation in Burton , Dr. RoBards testified at Moody's trial. She stated that she began her study with the case of a patient who suffered from various neuropsychological deficits after working at CSX's South Louisville shops. The study consisted of surveying others who worked at the same place, at the same time, under the same working conditions, and with the same job description to determine if they had similar symptoms. [21] She found that they did. Dr. RoBards testified that Moody was one of the study participants. She concluded after conducting a neuropsychological evaluation that his symptoms were consistent with toxic encephalopathy. CSX did not object to the testimony. [22] Having failed to do so, CSX cannot complain that the trial court erred by failing to exclude the testimony.