Court Opinion

ID: 9751178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:10:44.963183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:36.837603
License: Public Domain

KLEIN, J.,
Concurring.
¶ 1 While I agree with the conclusion of Judge Tereshko and the majority, I find this case presents a difficult issue. Plaintiff/Appellant relies on an expert report to get beyond summary judgment. The expert report is written for medical professionals, not legal professionals. However, it is PlaintiffiAppellant’s obligation to show that the legal standard for recovery has been met.
¶2 In many cases, because mass torts are often assigned to a single judge, the medical shorthand can be sufficient for the judge to conclude that enough has been presented to survive summary judgment. That is not the situation here.
¶ 3 I supervised the asbestos case program in Philadelphia for many years. Therefore, in many cases I understand the language of a medical report well enough to glean that a plaintiff suffered symptoms from asbestosis. I am sure Judge Terse-ko’s experience is similar.
¶ 4 However, the instant situation is not the normal case where a pulmonary expert says a plaintiff has parenchymal asbestosis
¶ 5 In a “standard” case, if a pulmonary physician can make a diagnosis of paren-chymal asbestos1 by x-ray and pulmonary function test2 (scarring in the body of the lung as opposed to the pleura or lining of the lung) this shorthand diagnosis carries with it the presumption that the disease is symptomatic. However, in this case, it is clear that there was major shortness of breath from the metastatic cancerous lung tumor resulting from a primary cancer of the esophagus. There also could be shortness of breath from the smoking history. *690Dr. Harvey Spector, the plaintiff’s medical expert, is a pathologist. He does not report on any tests done prior to the lung cancer.
¶ 6 Dr. Spector does report pathological evidence of “interstitial fibrosis with ‘honeycombing’ and scattered asbestos bodies.” This is typical of parenchymal asbestosis, and if significant, would cause shortness of breath. However, often diagnoses can be made by autopsy that cannot be diagnosed by x-ray or pulmonary function test. In any event, this is not a case where it is clear the parenchymal asbestos is at a stage where it is symptomatic, certainly not in the face of shortness of breath from other causes. However, this is only a pathological finding, and although honeycombing usually does indicate a relatively more advanced case of asbestos, in view of the major shortness of breath from the cancer, it is unclear whether the pathological finding is indicative of significant symptoms from asbestos exposure relative to the symptoms from the cancer. This is the report of a pathologist, not a pulmonary specialist.
¶ 7 For these reasons, I agree that plaintiff has not met his burden of showing shortness of breath from asbestos as opposed to the lung cancer. I agree with the decision of Judge Tereshko and the majority.

. Scarring in the body of the lung caused by asbestos exposure, which causes a "restrictive” disease and shortness of breath.

. A breathing test that can determine lung function and whether reduced function is from a "restrictive” disease, such as asbestosis, or an “obstructive" disease, often caused by smoking.