Court Opinion

ID: 9489208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:09:03.752016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:23.918783
License: Public Domain

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting:
I dissent. When the evidence in this case is properly examined under the applicable standard of review, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.
I.
The majority opinion sets out the correct standard of review. This Court is to review *1172all of the evidence in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to Guilbeau.1 The majority fails, however, to properly apply the proper standard of review. The majority draws inferences in favor of Henry, even in the face of evidence supporting Guilbeau, and at times ignores crucial testimony in Guilbeau’s favor. I am therefore forced to dissent and show that the evidence supports the jury’s verdict.
In this diversity case, we must apply Louisiana products liability law as set out in Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.2, The Louisiana legislature overruled an aspect of Halphen when it enacted the Louisiana Products Liability Act.3 The Act did not take effect, however, until September 1,1988, and the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that it does not apply retroactively.4 Because Guilbeau was exposed to Henry’s product before September 1, 1988, we look to the case law that developed before the Act came into effect.5
Under Halphen, Guilbeau must show (1) he was injured; (2) his injury was caused by a condition in Henry’s glue; (3) the condition made the glue unreasonably dangerous for normal use; and (4) the condition existed at the time the glue left Henry’s control.6 There are several categories of unreasonably dangerous products.7 One of these categories is products that are unreasonably dangerous because of a failure to warn. Henry is required to provide an adequate warning of any danger inherent in the normal use of the glue that is not within the knowledge of or obvious to the ordinary user.8 If Henry fails to adequately warn about a danger related to the way the glue is designed, the glue is unreasonably dangerous.9
II.
When the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to Guilbeau, it is sufficient to satisfy all the elements of a products liability cause of action. First, Guilbeau was injured. He was sickened after being exposed to Henry’s glue. Second, his injury was caused by a condition in Henry’s glue; namely, the presence of organic solvents. Third, Henry’s failure to warn about the presence of organic solvents made the glue unreasonably dangerous. Finally, the organic solvents were present when the glue left Henry’s control.
A.
The evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Guilbeau was injured after being exposed to Henry’s glue. Before Guilbeau was exposed to Henry’s glue, he was a relatively healthy and well-adjusted man. His wife testified that he was not a sickly man, but was “healthy ... a robust man. ... and there was not a thing wrong with him.” His co-workers also testified that he was “never sick,” was “healthy,” and that he “never complained ... at leas[t] until they start[ed] putting down the glue.”10 Granted, his *1173health was not perfect. He smoked, had a few previous upper respiratory infections, and had bouts with high blood pressure. But his health was dramatically better before he was exposed to Henry’s glue than after his exposure.
He was also psychologically well-adjusted. His wife and co-workers testified that, before he was exposed to Henry’s glue, he was a happy man, a wonderful husband and an extremely successful salesman. Although he did attempt suicide after his wife refused his initial marriage proposal in 1969, seventeen years before he was exposed to Henry’s glue — his wife testified that he did not do “any other thing like that” after 1969.
The majority tries to cast aspersions on Guilbeau’s sanity by pointing out that his honorable discharge from the Army, which stated that he was discharged for having a knee problem, was signed by a psychiatrist. However, his wife testified that he hurt his knee before he enlisted in the Army, and then dislocated that same knee while in the service when he slid down an embankment. When viewed in the light most favorable to the Guilbeau, this evidence indicates that he was discharged because he had a knee problem. Despite the requirement that all inferences be drawn in Guilbeau’s favor, however, the majority infers from the fact that a psychiatrist signed the discharge that Guilbeau was actually discharged for other reasons. Such an inference is simply not allowable under the proper standard of review.
The majority attempts to further question Guilbeau’s mental stability by pointing out that Dr. Clause prescribed tranquilizers to Guilbeau for anxiety in the early-to-mid 1970’s. Dr. Clause testified, however, that the last time he prescribed anxiety medication to Guilbeau was May 27, 1977, nine years before his exposure to Henry’s glue. Dr. Clause also testified that Guilbeau was not chronically nervous or anxious, and that during 28 years of treatment he saw no sign that Guilbeau was suffering from a psychiatric disorder. Dr. Clause’s opinion was collaborated by Guilbeau’s wife and co-workers’ testimony that, before the exposure, Guilbeau did not suffer from the “temper tantrums” and other psychological problems that he suffered after he was exposed to Henry’s glue. Finally, Dr. Clause testified that Guilbeau never complained to him about a problem he did not have.
After Guilbeau was exposed to Henry’s glue on August 15, 16 and 18, 1986, both his physical and mental health drastically deteriorated. He began to suffer from equilibrium problems, impaired judgment, inability to control his emotions, panic attacks, cacosmia,11 and seizures. All of the witnesses— including Dr. Clause, who was called by the defense — who observed Guilbeau both before and after he was exposed to Henry’s glue agree that he was dramatically sickened immediately after the exposure.
In short, the evidence is sufficient to show that Guilbeau exhibited many symptoms after being exposed to Henry’s glue that he did not exhibit before exposure. Although Guilbeau may not have been in perfect health before he was exposed to Henry’s glue, the evidence definitely supports a finding that he was better before exposure than afterwards.
B.
Having found that the evidence is sufficient to show that Guilbeau became sick after being exposed to Henry’s glue, we now turn to the next question: Whether the evidence supports a finding that Guilbeau’s sickness was caused by a condition in Henry’s glue. Our review of the record shows that the evidence is sufficient to support such a finding. Specifically, there is sufficient evidence to show that Guilbeau was injured because he was exposed to organic solvents that were present in Henry’s glue.
First, causation is supported by common sense inferences from the lay testimony. Guilbeau’s wife and co-workers testified that he became sickened after being exposed to the glue. That testimony supports a corn*1174mon sense inference that the glue caused his sickness.
Second, Dr. Harper testified that Guilbeau’s sickness was most likely caused by exposure to organic solvents contained in Henry’s glue. Dr. Harper was a board certified neurologist, who was also trained in pharmacology and psychopharmacology, and who had broad experience with the toxic effects of various substances. Dr. Harper testified that Guilbeau suffered from toxic encephalopathy, a form of brain damage, and that exposure to Henry’s glue was the most likely cause of Guilbeau’s brain damage. Dr. Harper’s opinion was based on several facts. First, he based it on the fact that Guilbeau’s health and behavior changed drastically after he was exposed to Henry’s glue. Second, he based it on Guilbeau’s eacosmia. Dr. Harper testified that eacosmia is caused by exposure to chemicals, and that he had never seen a patient who suffered from eacosmia that was not exposed to chemicals. He also based his opinion on a SPECT scan, which showed decreased blood flow in portions of Guilbeau’s brain in a pattern that was consistent with toxic encephalopathy. Finally, he based his opinion on the fact that Henry’s glue contained several organic solvents, including ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, xylene, methyl ethyl ketone and toluene, all of which cause toxic encephalopathy. Notably, Dr. Harper did not base his opinion upon the presence of pentachlorophenol. In fact, he never mentioned the word pentachlorophenol during his testimony. Dr. Harper also testified that Guilbeau’s injury was not caused by smoking, sawdust or formaldehyde, and that it was not a spontaneous psychological experience.
In summary, Dr. Harper based his opinion on the fact that Henry’s glue contained chemicals that cause brain damage, that Guilbeau was exposed to the glue, and that shortly thereafter he went from being relatively healthy to suffering from toxic encephalopathy. This basis is sufficient to support his testimony that the organic solvents in Henry’s glue caused Guilbeau’s sickness.
Guilbeau also presented the testimony of Dr. Reddy, a Ph.D. chemist. Dr. Reddy’s testimony establishes that Henry’s glue contains the organic solvents that Dr. Harper said caused Guilbeau’s sickness. Henry refused to disclose the glue’s ingredients until midway through trial, so Guilbeau was forced to have Dr. Reddy analyze two samples of Henry’s glue to determine which organic solvents were present. In one sample, Dr. Reddy found significant amounts of ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, xylene and methyl ethyl ketone. In the other sample, Dr. Reddy found those four solvents, as well as toluene and trichloroethane.12 These are the same organic solvents that Dr. Harper testified were the most likely cause of Guilbeau’s toxic encephalopathy.
Dr. Callender also testified that Guilbeau was sickened by exposure to Henry’s glue. Dr. Callender is board certified in internal medicine, and specializes in neurotoxicology — the study of how chemicals affect the nervous system, including the brain. He testified that Guilbeau suffered from toxic encephalopathy, which was caused by exposure to compounds contained in Henry’s glue. He based his opinions on several factors. First, Guilbeau exhibited numerous symptoms after being exposed to Henry’s glue that he did not exhibit before exposure. Second, chemicals that cause toxic encephalopathy, including organic solvents, were present in Henry’s glue. Third, the symptoms Guilbeau suffered were consistent with “acute organic solvent exposure syndrome,” a cluster of symptoms associated with exposure to organic solvents. Fourth, the SPECT scan showed areas of decreased brain function, which was consistent with toxic encephalopathy. Finally, Dr. Callender eliminated all possible eonfounders; that is, he determined that Guilbeau’s symptoms were not caused by other factors.
*1175Dr. Callender’s opinions are limited, however, by his mistaken belief that Henry’s glue contained pentachlorophenol. Dr. Cal-lender’s mistaken belief arose from his misreading of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Henry’s glue. The MSDS indicated that Henry’s glue contained sodium pentachlorophenate. Dr. Callender mistakenly believed that sodium pentachlorophenate was a form of pentachlorophenol. Dr. Callender went on to describe in great detail the dangerous nature of pentachlorophenol, and how pentachlorophenol, in concert with the organic solvents, caused Guilbeau’s injuries.
Henry’s counsel did nothing to clear up Dr. Callender’s confusion. He did not object to Dr. Callender’s testimony regarding pentachlorophenol on the ground that there was no evidence that Henry’s glue contained pentachlorophenol, nor did he point out the difference between pentachlorophenol and sodium pentachlorophenate during cross-examination. Further, both Henry’s counsel and Henry’s expert witnesses referred to the sodium pentachlorophenate in the glue as pentachlorophenol on numerous occasions. In fact, Henry’s counsel did not bring out the fact that the glue did not contain pentachlorophenol until the last day of trial, when Dr. Berger, one of Henry’s experts, pointed out the difference between the two compounds and testified that the glue did not contain pentachlorophenol.
Despite the fact that Henry did not object to Guilbeau’s experts’ testimony regarding pentachlorophenol, the fact remains that there is no evidence that the glue contained pentachlorophenol. Therefore, any testimony based upon the presence of pentachlorophenol cannot support the verdict. The fact that Henry’s glue did not contain pentachlorophenol does not end our inquiry, however. This Court must still examine the record to see if there is sufficient testimony that is not based on the presence of pentachlorophenol to support the verdict.
When the record is reviewed in the light most favorable to Guilbeau, it does contain sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to find that organic solvents in the glue caused Guilbeau’s sickness. A reasonable juror would have believed Dr. Berger’s statement that the glue did not contain pentaehlorophenol, especially since Henry’s counsel emphasized during his closing argument that the glue did not contain pentachlorophenol. There was evidence that the glue contained organic solvents, however. Based on the testimony of Dr. Callender and Dr. Harper, a reasonable juror could find that Guilbeau’s injuries were caused by those organic solvents.
Of course, Henry presented evidence that Guilbeau’s injuries were not caused by the glue. Dr. Friedberg testified that Guilbeau suffered from a somatization disorder, although he could not rule out the possibility that Guilbeau’s problems were caused by exposure to organic solvents. Dr. Rees and Dr. Black also opined that Guilbeau was a somatisizer. Further, they testified that Guilbeau did not suffer from brain damage, and that his problems were not caused by exposure to organic solvents. Finally, Henry presented the testimony of Dr. Berger, who testified that Guilbeau suffered from lung disease and personality problems, but was not injured by exposure to Henry’s glue. Henry’s experts’ testimony was inconsistent with Guilbeau’s experts’ testimony. Guilbeau’s experts testified that his problems were caused by exposure to organic solvents, while Henry’s experts testified that his problems were psychological. The resolution of this conflict, however, was strictly within the province of the jury. The jury apparently found Guilbeau’s experts more credible, and believed them instead of Henry’s experts. This Court does not have the power to overturn such a credibility determination. Thus, the testimony of Guilbeau’s experts, bolstered by common sense inferences from lay testimony, is sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable juror could find that Guilbeau was sickened as a result of being exposed to Henry’s glue.
C.
The evidence was sufficient to establish that Henry’s glue was unreasonably dangerous because Henry failed to warn about the *1176danger posed by organic solvents. It is undisputed that Henry did not include a warning about the danger of organic solvents on the glue’s label. Dr. Callender testified that the glue should have contained a warning. His opinion was not contingent on the presence of pentachlorophenol in the glue. In fact, he testified that, even if the glue did not contain pentachlorophenol, it was still unreasonably dangerous because it did not warn about the dangerous organic solvents. Specifically, Dr. Callender testified as follows:
[Mr. Musselwhite] 'Now, if for any reason the defendants were to contend ... that pentachlorophenol was not in the product^] ... would the warning be pretty much the same except you’d just eliminate the reference to pentachlorophenol:
[Dr. Callender] Yes.
[Mr. Musselwhite] So you would still warn as to these other chemicals that showed up on the tests run by Dr. Reddy and Dr. Subra, still warn as to those chemicals in the same way you’ve warned here?
[Dr. Callender] Right.
[Mr. Musselwhite] Is that correct? And the failure to do so would render the label inadequate; is that your opinion?
[Dr. Callender] Right.
The evidence supports Dr. Callender’s testimony. Dr. Reddy found that Henry’s glue contained significant amounts of organic solvents. Dr. Callender’s testimony established that the dangers of organic solvents were well established in the scientific literature when Henry manufactured the glue. Thus, there is a sufficient foundation for Dr. Cal-lender’s opinion testimony that the glue should have warned about the dangers of organic solvents. Dr. Callender’s opinion testimony, in turn, was sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find that Henry’s glue was unreasonably dangerous because of Henry’s failure to warn.
The majority contends that, assuming Guilbeau was sickened by Henry’s glue, the product was not unreasonably dangerous because, out of the millions of applications of Henry’s glue, Guilbeau was the only person to have an adverse reaction. In making this contention, the majority cites Lemoine v. Aero-Mist, Inc.,13 a Louisiana case that held that a product is not unreasonably dangerous because a person has an idiosyncratic reaction to it. Lemoine, as well as the line of cases upon which its holding is based,14 is easily distinguishable from Guilbeau’s case. In Lemoine, a woman suffered an allergic reaction after she was exposed to an insecticide manufactured by Aero-Mist, Inc.15 The trial court found that her allergic reaction was very rare, and held that a manufacturer has no duty to warn against the possibility of a rare or idiosyncratic sensitivity.16 The other cases cited by the majority are to the same effect.17
The evidence in this ease, however, supports a finding that Guilbeau did not have an idiosyncratic reaction. Guilbeau presented evidence that the glue contained organic solvents, which are known to be dangerous. He also presented evidence that he was injured because he was exposed to dangerous organic solvents, not because he had an idiosyncratic allergic reaction. His experts testified that organic solvents are simply dangerous, not that they cause an allergic reaction in a few people.
The majority simply misconstrues Louisiana law. A plaintiff does not have to prove that other people have been injured by a product in order to show that the product was unreasonably dangerous. He simply has *1177to show that the product — either because of inherent dangerousness or because or an inadequate warning — is unreasonably dangerous to a reasonably foreseeable user.18 Because Guilbeau showed that the presence of organic solvents made the glue unreasonably dangerous for normal use because of Henry’s failure to provide an adequate warning, rather than showing that he had a rare allergic reaction to the glue, the evidence is sufficient to uphold the verdict.
D.
The evidence was sufficient to show that the glue contained organic solvents when it left Henry’s control. Dr. Reddy testified that a three-and-a-haif gallon plastic can of Henry’s glue contained four organic solvents: ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, xylene and methyl ethyl ketone. Dr. Reddy also tested a metal can of Henry’s glue, which was purchased after Guilbeau’s exposure, and found those four solvents, as well as toluene and triehloroethane. Dr. Reddy explained that the reason that the metal can contained organic solvents that the plastic can did not was that the plastic can had been opened. Volatile organic solvents like toluene and trichloroethane easily evaporate from an open can. Thus, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the glue to which Henry was exposed contained toluene and trichloroethane, but that those solvents had evaporated out of the plastic can before Guilbeau had it tested. Dr. Reddy’s analysis of Henry’s glue, especially that of the unopened can bought off the shelf, is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the glue contained organic solvents when it left Henry’s control.
III.
Because, as we have shown, the record contains sufficient evidence to uphold the verdict, I dissent. Although I admit that the jury may have found for Guilbeau because it mistakenly thought that Henry’s glue contained pentachlorophenol, there is sufficient evidence to support the inference — which, like all inferences supporting the verdict, must be made — that the jury based its verdict on the presence of organic solvents rather than on the mistaken belief that the glue contained pentachlorophenol.
Further, Henry neither objected to Guilbeau’s evidence regarding pentachlorophenol nor cross-examined Guilbeau’s experts on the ground that the glue did not contain pentachlorophenol. In fact, Henry did not even point out that the glue did not contain pentachlorophenol until the last day of trial. The first time that Henry objected to Guilbeau’s experts use of the terms “pentachlorophenol” or “POP” was in its motion for a new trial. Because Henry failed to even object to Guilbeau’s presentation of evidence regarding pentachlorophenol during trial, I do not think that the prejudice that Henry suffered because the jury was told about pentachlorophenol is the kind of plain error that would mandate a new trial.19 Further, even if we found that the jury was affected by evidence of pentachlorophenol that should not have been before it, the worst that this Court should do would be to remand this case for a new trial, not to reverse and render.
For the reasons stated above, I would AFFIRM the district court.

. See Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-75 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc).

. 484 So.2d 110 (La.1986).

. Gilboy v. American Tobacco Co., 582 So.2d 1263, 1264 (La.1991).

. Id.

. Klem v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours Co., 19 F.3d 997, 1000 (5th Cir.1994).

. See Klem, 19 F.3d at 1000; Antley v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 539 So.2d 696, 699-700 (La.App. 3d Cir.1989) (citing Halphen, 484 So.2d at 113).

. Klem, 19 F.3d at 1000. Under Louisiana law, a product is unreasonably dangerous:
(1) if the danger involved in its use outweighs its utility, it is said to be per se unreasonably dangerous; (2) in construction or composition, if it contains an unintended abnormality or condition that renders it more dangerous than it is designed to be; (3) for lack of warning, if the manufacturer failed to adequately warn of the dangers that attend its use; or (4) by design, if safer alternative products were available or the product could have been designed in a less dangerous manner.
Id. at 1000-1001.

. See Halphen, 484 So.2d at 115.

. See id.

. Guilbeau’s attorney asked Rollin Duplechin, one of Guilbeau’s co-workers, “But before the time that ya'll put the glue down, had you ever seen Mr. Guilbeau appearing to be sick in any way?” Duplechin replied, "No, never was sick. Never complained to us, at leas[t] until they start[ed] putting down the glue.” Similarly, Jonathan Shaw, who also worked with Guilbeau, *1173testified that Guilbeau did not complain about odors or smells before the exposure, and that he was "healthy and fun to be around” before he was exposed the Henry’s glue.

. A condition in which innocuous smells cause severe nausea. Dr. Harper testified that cacosmia is an indication of exposure to organic solvents.

. Dr. Reddy explained that the reason that the second sample contained organic solvents that the first sample did not was that the plastic can from which the first sample had been taken had been opened. Volatile organic solvents like toluene and trichloroethane easily evaporate from an open can. Thus, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the glue to which Herny was exposed contained toluene and trichloroethane, but that those solvents had evaporated out of the plastic can from which the first sample had been taken before Guilbeau had it tested.

. 539 So.2d 712 (La.App. 3d Cir.1989).

. See, e.g., Booker v. Revlon Realistic Professional Products, Inc., 433 So.2d 407, 410 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983); Rhodes v. Max Factor, Inc., 264 So.2d 263, 266 (La.App. 4th Cir.1972).

. Lemoine, 539 So.2d at 713.

. Id. at 713-14.

. See, e.g., Booker, 433 So.2d at 410 (holding that plaintiff could not recover when the trial court found that she either misapplied the product or suffered an idiosyncratic allergic reaction to it); Rhodes, 264 So.2d at 266 (Holding that plaintiff could not recover for injury caused by her idiosyncratic allergic reaction to a product).

. Extremely rare or idiosyncratic allergic reactions are not reasonably foreseeable. Thus, there is no duty to warn about them.

. See McCann v. Texas City Refining, Inc., 984 F.2d 667, 673 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal are reviewed only for plain error).