Court Opinion

ID: 9517168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:06:50.483798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:42.939803
License: Public Domain

MURRY B. COHEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I join parts I through IV(D) of Justice Jennings’s opinion for the en banc Court. However, I disagree with part IV(E) of that opinion and thus with the conclusion and judgment. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Sufficiency of Evidence Other Than Dr. Miller’s Causation Opinion
I agree with the majority that Anderson had to prove causation by expert testimony. Unlike the majority, however, I would hold that Dr. Brown’s written diagnosis and testimony by Coastal’s Dr. Wilson, along with the naphtha material safety data sheet (“MSDS”), supplied the general causation link that Dr. Miller’s opinion lacked.
1. Additional Comments on the Standard of Review
Under the Jones Act, we inquire whether the evidence reasonably justifies the conclusion that Coastal’s negligence played any part, “even the slightest,” in producing the injury at issue. E.g., Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis, 971 S.W.2d 402, 406 (Tex.1998). It would be hard to imagine a standard of review more favorable to a plaintiff. Certainly, this standard of review is more favorable than that under the traditional evidentiary standards: under the Jones Act, the jury enjoys complete discretion in deciding factual liability issues, and we uphold the verdict if it is supported by some, “even the slightest” evidence.1 Id. at 406; Offshore Pipelines *620v. Schooley, 984 S.W.2d 654, 663 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
2. Dr. Brown’s Opinion
Coastal did not sufficiently object under Robinson and Havner to Dr. Brown’s medical records;2 thus, Coastal may not now challenge the use of Dr. Brown’s causation opinions within those records to support general or specific causation. See Maritime Overseas Corp., 971 S.W.2d at 409 (“To preserve a complaint that scientific evidence is unreliable and thus, no evidence, a party must object to the evidence before trial or when the evidence is offered.”).
I set out Dr. Brown’s initial file note of September 27,1994 in full:
[Anderson] presented a long history, very carefully given, that he was in a foreign port when they took on a load of naphtha. The fumes were extremely heavy and gagged him, and caused him kind of a respiratory type breathing problem that resulted in some chest pain. He had a hacking cough, which is documented in the communications. He had a diagnosis of tracheobronchitis, which is documented in the communications sent to me.
Here in my office I got a history that he was a long time employee of Reynolds Metals, never any serious illnesses. He had a hernia operation in 1971. There is no history of any on the job illnesses that I know of. Socially, he doesn’t drink coffee or tea, and he does not smoke or use tobacco products. Only upon occasion does he drink any alcohol whatsoever. As I listened carefully, the man related that he had been confined to his room and “quarantined” for six days. It got more difficult for him to breathe, and he had progressively more chest pain. He also went on to relate *621that they took on a load and that the fumes were very difficult to tolerate and caused a lot of bronchospasm, coughing and chest discomfort.
He got to my practice in sort of a circuitous route, in that Dr. Vela here in Corpus Christi was unable to see him, and they wanted somebody who had dealt with [text whited out] in the past. Having dealt with high chain aeromatic hydrocarbons since the early 70’s, when I was the medical director at Coastal States Gas Producing here in Corpus Christy I became familiar with the types of pneumonia that this particular product could cause.
Head, eyes, ears, nose and throat revealed a bright red pharynx and bright red ears. This man was using the accessory strap muscles of respiration and appeared quite ill. Otherwise the head, eyes, ears, nose and throat were normal. Ausculation of the lungs revealed that he was barely moving any air at all, and it sounded as if he might have some sort of emphysema or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. I went on to ask about asbestos, and the only history I got of asbestos was that he had worked at Reynolds Martin for 30 years and had had chest films every year, and that nothing had ever come up abnormal. Today we did an EKG, which revealed a sinus rhythm with a right ventricular conduction delay. He had a pulmonary function testing, which revealed extremely restricted FEV 1 of only about 50% of predicted [illegible] and extremely restricted air flow. A chest x-ray revealed a fleecy peribronchiolar infiltrate around the hilum of the lungs and almost a consolidated pneumonia in the lung bases bilaterally, but more pronounced on the right than the left. I went back and re-examined the patient and found out that he was actually a little bit more hypoxic than I felt. At this point I felt like I needed to back up [sic] the expertise of the hospital and the pulmonologist.
My impression was that he had an aspiration/chemical type pneumonia secondary to the breathing of a high chain aeromatic hydrocarbon such as naphtha. The history o[whited out] contamination I figured probably would have resulted in a dead patient. Long standing exposure to asbestos, if he had it, and I am not sure he did, would result in markedly different looking chest film, which would be read as asbestosis. At any rate, I felt that the man’s wellness was in jeopardy and that I needed the support of the hospital and consultation of Dr. David Miller, local pulmonologist. I think the prognosis is guarded at this point.
(Emphasis added.) The discharge summary that Dr. Brown co-signed also states in part as follows:
Patient was admitted to the hospital due to shortness of breath and due to his history of exposure to naphtha from working as a merchant marine. Patient was also exposed to asbestos from working at Reynolds Aluminum Foil Plant locally for 30 years. He was exposed to Naphtha while working as a merchant marine for the past 4 years. Upon admission, a chest x-ray was done which showed diffuse infiltrates in both lungs, most severe in the lower right lobe consistent with pneumonitis3 secondary to chemical exposure. CT scan done with contrast to evaluate interstitial lung disease showed fibrosis in both *622lung bases with a predominantly peripheral distribution. Possibilities include usual interstitial pneumonitis secondary to rheumatologic disease, asbestosis is less likely due to the absent [sic] of pleural plaques a condition that can result in this case. Other conditions that can result in basilar fibrosis are sclero-derma and chronic aspiration. Repeat chest exam done on the 1st of October 1994, showed a worsening of the right base, preexisting infiltrates and they are still present. Repeat chest exam on the 3rd of October showed unimproved bibasilar pneumonia and no new complications. Repeat on the 5th showed no new complications. Lung biopsy which was performed on the 30th of September 1994, path report shows diagnosis as previously stated. Biopsy was done on the right lower and middle lung biopsy and showed bronchiolitis obliterans, organizing pneumonia [BOOP].
(Emphasis added.) In various other documents, Dr. Brown reiterates in shorthand his diagnosis of BOOP secondary to toxic exposure.4
Contrary to Coastal’s argument, Dr. Brown’s diagnostic records are not like those in Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye. 907 S.W.2d 497 (Tex.1995). In Crye, neither a Robinson/Havner nor a Jones Act case, the Court held that medical records were no evidence that Polysporin spray caused frostbite. Id. at 500. But there, the uncontroverted evidence showed the plaintiff had a physical reaction to the spray that her own expert testified would not indicate frostbite, and the medical records were mere recitations of medical history or were based on lay or flawed expert opinions, including an expert opinion based on assumed facts that varied materially from the actual, undisputed facts. Id. at 499-500. Here, in contrast, Dr. Brown was the first to diagnose causation; he based that initial diagnosis on what approximates a differential diagnosis and on his lengthy personal experience (including as medical director of Coastal States Gas Producing Company) with pneumonia due to high-chain aromatic hydrocarbons; and he reiterated (albeit summarily) this causation diagnosis after Anderson underwent multiple medical tests. Expert causation testimony must rest in reasonable medical probability, but reasonable probability is determined from the opinion’s context and substance, not by semantics or a particular term’s use. Id. at 500. Dr. Brown’s diagnosis meets this test. This is so even if Anderson did not present Dr. Brown as his trial expert because we must consider the entire record in a sufficiency review. Dr. Brown’s written diagnosis is some evidence of specific causation, because it is a differential diagnosis, and also of general causation, because Coastal did not properly object to this aspect of Dr. Brown’s diagnosis. See Ellis, 971 S.W.2d at 409.
3. Other Evidence of General Causation
Besides Dr. Brown’s diagnosis, the pathology report comments that multiple conditions can, in general, be “associated with” BOOP, including toxic industrial fumes, drugs, infections, chronic aspiration, collagen vascular disease, bronchial obstruction, and “idiopathic.” It is thus significant that the naphtha MSDS, which federal regulations required Coastal to post on this vessel, states “pneumonitis” is a potential effect of overexposure to naph*623tha;5 that Coastal’s counsel agreed at oral argument that “pneumonitis” is the same thing as “pneumonia”;6 and that Dr. Wilson, Coastal’s own expert, testified that chemical pneumonia, which Drs. Brown and Miller concluded Anderson first had, can cause BOOP.7 These were Coastal’s documents, Coastal’s admission, and Coastal’s expert. I consider these to be highly significant pieces of evidence.
For example, federal regulations require an MSDS for “hazardous chemicals,” which are defined in pertinent part as any chemical that is a “health hazard.” 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(c) (2001). “Health hazard” is defined as “a chemical for which there is statistically significant evidence based on at least one study conducted in accordance with established scientific principles that acute or chronic health effects may occur in exposed employees.” Id. The chemical’s manufacturer or importer, or an employer that opts to do its own testing,8 must “identify and consider the available scientific evidence concerning such [health] hazards.” The regulation further declares that “evidence which is statistically significant and which is based on at least one positive study conducted in accordance with established scientific principles is considered to be sufficient to establish a hazardous effect if the result of the study meets the definitions of health hazards in this section,” noting also that the regulation’s Appendix B must be consulted for criteria to be used in the chemical’s evaluation, the data to be reported, and the chemical’s listing as hazardous. Id. at (c), (d)(2). Appendix B provides, among other things, that the results of any studies that “are designed and conducted according to established scientific principles, and which report statistically significant conclusions regarding the health effects of a chemical, shall be a sufficient basis for a hazard determination and reported on any [MSDS].” Id., Appendix B, 4.
We do not know who compiled this naphtha MSDS or exactly what testing procedures that entity used. It could have been The Coastal Corporation, whose name, address, and phone number appeared at the top of the MSDS, or one of the 17 apparently related corporations also listed there. See 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(c), (d)(l)-(2), (g)(1) (2001) (allowing the chemical’s manufacturer or importer, or an employer that opts to do its own testing, to conduct the chemical’s testing and develop the MSDS; also defining “employer” as “a *624person engaged in a business where chemicals are either used, distributed, or are produced for use or distribution, including a contractor or subcontractor”). Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we should assume the MSDS was done by some Coastal corporate body. But even without this assumption, whichever entity compiled this MSDS had to meet the above regulations in determining the chemical’s health hazards. This fact makes the MSDS a sufficiently reliable link in the general causation chain, especially given (1) that that link was Coastal’s own business document and (2) our “even the slightest evidence” standard of review.
4. Conclusion
The trial judge would not have abused his discretion if he impliedly determined that (1) specific causation was reliably proved by Dr. Miller’s opinion and (2) general causation was reliably proved by Dr. Brown’s written diagnosis and Coastal’s own expert and document.9 Applying the Jones Act “featherweight” causation standard, I would accordingly hold there is legally sufficient evidence that Anderson’s naphtha exposure “played any part, even the slightest” in causing his BOOP. See Ellis, 971 S.W.2d at 406. I would thus overrule Coastal’s issues one and two and reach its remaining issues.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the en banc Court’s judgment.

. Traditional no-evidence review requires something more than a mere evidentiary scintilla, which means “a barely perceptible manifestation," “the slightest particle or trace," and "a spark; a remaining particle; a trifle; the least particle." Waldrep v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n, 21 S.W.3d 692, 697 (Tex.App.Austin 2000, pet. denied) (quoting W. Wendell Hall, Standards of Review in Texas, 29 St. Mary's L.J. 351, 480 n. 858 (1998)). That is, the evidence need rise only “to a level that *620would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions.” Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex.1997) (citing Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex.1995)). Our standard of review here is even lighter than this.

. Dr. Brown's medical records were part of plaintiff's exhibit 28. Coastal's only objection to that exhibit was, "There is an objection to the record to the extent they [sic] include opinions regarding medical causation for the reasons that we have previously discussed.” Coastal did not then mention Dr. Brown or explain why his causation opinions, as opposed to Dr. Miller’s, were unreliable. Plaintiff's exhibit 28, which fills an entire reporter's record volume, is comprised of 288 pages of medical records from one medical center and three doctors, including Drs. Miller and Brown. A Robinson/Havner objection must be specific. See, e.g., Scherl v. State, 7 S.W.3d 650, 651-52 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd) (under equivalent criminal rule); Chisum v. State, 988 S.W.2d 244, 250-51 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998, pet. ref’d) (same); Hon. Harvey Brown, Procedural Issues Under Daubert, 36 Hous. L.Rev. 1133, 139-41 (Winter 1999). Coastal's "previously discussed” challenges concerned mainly Dr. Miller's causation opinions, not Dr.' Brown’s, making the objection ambiguous. Compare Tex.R. Evid. 103(a)(1) (requiring statement of specific objection ground, unless context makes ground apparent — which context does not here); Tex. R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A) (same). Additionally, Coastal neither specified to which of these many pages it was objecting, nor claimed all 288 pages were inadmissible. In fact, no one disputes that many pages were admissible. Nor did Coastal object to Anderson's offering the stack of records without first segregating out the admissible from the inadmissible portions. For these reasons, too, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling Coastal's objection to exhibit 28 — especially given that Coastal did not carry its initial burden to object specifically. See, e.g., Brown & Root v. Haddad, 142 Tex. 624, 180 S.W.2d 339, 342 (1944); Leaird's, Inc. v. Wrangler, Inc., 31 S.W.3d 688, 692 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, pet. denied); Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 678 S.W.2d 98, 101 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1984, writ dism’d). Compare Hurtado v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass'n, 574 S.W.2d 536, 538-39 (Tex.1978).

. "Pneumonitis” means an “inflammation of the lungs.” Stedman's Medical Dictionary (27th ed.2000) at 1141; see note 6, below.

. Dr. Brown’s records occasionally indicate BOOP secondary to toxic or infectious exposure, but this wording seems to have come from the pathology report, in which the pathologist simply listed the known causes of BOOP. In any event, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to Anderson.

. The MSDS indicated that naphtha can irritate mucous membranes and the respiratory tract and can act as an asphyxiant; that overexposure can lead to headache, nausea, drowsiness, fatigue, pneumonitis, pulmonary edema, and central nervous system depression; and that naphtha can cause stomach irritation, unconsciousness, congestion, and hemorrhaging of the lung and internal organs.

. See also Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (27th ed.2000) at 1141 ("pneumonia” and "pneu-monitis” both characterized as “inflammation of the lungs,” with each term cross-referencing the other).

. Coastal argues that we may not consider Dr. Brown’s initial diagnosis of pneumonitis secondary to chemical exposure because later pathology tests revealed Anderson had BOOP, not chemical pneumonia. This argument does not take the evidence in the light most favorable to Anderson. Viewed in the appropriate light, Dr. Brown's diagnosis could be interpreted to mean either that he believed Anderson had an initial bout of chemical pneumonia that turned into BOOP or that Anderson's BOOP, even if initially mistaken for chemical pneumonia, appeared nonetheless to be caused by chemical inhalation. That is, the diagnoses of chemical pneumonia and BOOP are not necessarily inconsistent or mutually exclusive.

.Any of these three entities may conduct the chemical’s testing and develop the MSDS. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(d)(l)-(2), (g)(1) (2001).

. Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc. and Cavallo v. Star Enterprise, on which Coastal and the majority rely, are distinguishable because the appellate courts there held the trial judge’s ruling on "close” issues was within his discretion, the opposite of what Coastal seeks to do here. See Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 278-79 (5th Cir.1998); id. at 279 (Benavides, J., concurring); Cavallo v. Star Enter., 892 F.Supp. 756 (E.D.Va.1995), aff'd in part on same grounds, rev’d in part on other grounds, 100 F.3d 1150, 1159 (4th Cir.); see also Green v. Texas Workers’ Comp. Ins. Facility, 993 S.W.2d 839, 844 (Tex.App.-Austin 1999, pet. denied).