Court Opinion

ID: 9929679
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 01:00:42.240437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:43:15.430343
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30343         Document: 00517054550               Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/02/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                                                                            FILED
                                        No. 23-30343                                 February 2, 2024
                                      Summary Calendar
                                      ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                            Clerk
   Chadwick L. Barrington,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                              versus

   BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP
   America Production Company; BP, P.L.C.; Transocean
   Holdings, L.L.C.; Transocean Deepwater,
   Incorporated; Transocean Offshore Deepwater
   Drilling, Incorporated; Halliburton Energy Services,
   Incorporated,

                                                                    Defendants—Appellees.

                      ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                      USDC Nos. 2:10-MD-2179, 2:17-CV-3632
                     ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30343     Document: 00517054550           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                    No. 23-30343

          We are faced with another B3 case in the Deepwater Horizon litigation
   where a district court excluded Dr. Jerald Cook’s general causation expert
   opinion and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants (collectively,
   “BP”). Finding no error, we AFFIRM.
                                        I.
          Chadwick L. Barrington was hired by BP through sub-contractors to
   clean up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. Through this work
   Barrington “was exposed to crude oil and dispersants,” which resulted “in
   symptoms including, but not limited to: coughing, rashes, sinus problems,
   [and] strep throat.” Later, Barrington expanded his symptoms to include
   “conjunctivitis, eye burning,” “[m]yalgia,” “[d]ysuria,” “[m]emory loss,”
   “[d]iarrhea,” “[s]hortness of breath,” and “[a]cne, skin dryness/flaking,
   inflammation, redness, or swelling . . . .” During his deposition, Barrington
   reported “blood clotting” and “erectile dysfunction” as symptoms as well.
   Barrington declined to participate in the previous class action settlement and
   chose to proceed individually against BP as a B3 plaintiff. His lawsuit was
   filed in 2017, and he brought exposure claims. At the close of discovery, BP
   moved to exclude Barrington’s general causation expert, Dr. Jerald Cook,
   and also moved for summary judgment arguing that, in the absence of
   admissible expert testimony, Plaintiff could not prevail in this toxic tort
   lawsuit. The district court agreed, excluded Plaintiff’s general causation
   expert, and entered summary judgment. This appeal followed.
                                        II.
          We review a district court’s exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of
   discretion and “do not disturb the court’s decision unless it is manifestly
   erroneous.’” Smith v. Chrysler Grp., L.L.C., 909 F.3d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
   2018) (quoting In re Complaint of C.F. Bean L.L.C., 841 F.3d 365, 369 (5th
   Cir. 2016)). We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo,

                                              2
Case: 23-30343         Document: 00517054550                Page: 3       Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                           No. 23-30343

   applying the same standard as the district court. Johnson v. Arkema, Inc., 685
   F.3d 452, 469 (5th Cir. 2012). That means we view the evidence in the light
   most favorable to the non-moving party, avoid credibility determinations and
   weighing of the evidence, and only affirm a grant of summary judgment when
   there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled
   to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
                                                III.
           Prest v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 22-30779, 2023 WL 6518116 (5th
   Cir. Oct. 5, 2023) (unpublished) (petition for reh’g filed), a related suit
   against BP brought by a B3 plaintiff, is dispositive of this appeal. 1 There, we
   recognized that B3 plaintiffs are required “to show both general and specific
   causation” to prevail on their exposure claims. Id. at *2 (citing Knight v. Kirby
   Inland Marine Inc., 482 F.3d 347, 351 (5th Cir. 2007)). General causation is at
   issue in this appeal, which refers to “‘whether a substance is capable of
   causing a particular injury or condition in the general population.’” Id. (citing
   Johnson, 685 F.3d at 468-69 (quoting Knight, 482 F.3d at 351)). B3 plaintiffs
   “must show ‘[s]cientific knowledge of the harmful level of exposure to a
   chemical’ to satisfy general causation.” Id. (quoting Allen v. Pa. Eng’r Corp.,
   102 F.3d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 1996)) (emphasis added).
           In this case, Barrington tried to prove general causation by submitting
   the expert report of Dr. Jerald Cook. The district court excluded the evidence
   because Dr. Cook’s report includes no identification of the necessary dose of

           _____________________
           1
             While Prest is unpublished and therefore nonbinding, it is highly persuasive given
   that the issues in Prest are nearly identical to the ones presented in this case. See Light-Age,
   Inc. v. Ashcroft-Smith, 922 F.3d 320, 322 n.1 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (noting our
   unpublished opinions issued after January 1, 1996, are “persuasive authority”). This panel
   finds the arguments that Prest was wrongly decided, as raised in Barrington’s reply brief,
   unavailing.

                                                       3
Case: 23-30343      Document: 00517054550          Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                    No. 23-30343

   exposure to crude oil or oil dispersant for any of Barrington’s complained-of
   symptoms to manifest in the general population. Barrington does not dispute
   that Dr. Cook failed to offer such scientific evidence. Instead, Barrington
   takes the same tack as the B3 plaintiff in Prest—he argues that the district
   court erred when it “mechanically applied Fifth Circuit jurisprudence
   without considering: (1) the unique circumstances underlying the BP Oil Spill
   response; and (2) the substantial body of evidence that BP’s breach of its duty
   to protect the workers led to the loss of valuable monitoring data to support”
   Barrington’s claims. We have already held these exact same “arguments fail
   for two reasons.” Id. at *2.
          “First, a district court does not abuse its discretion when it properly
   analyzes the law and applies it to the facts of the case.” Id. at *3 (citing
   Thomas v. Hughes, 27 F.4th 363, 367 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotations
   omitted)). Barrington fails to offer a citation to “any toxic tort cases where
   we have not required the plaintiff to show the harmful level of exposure to a
   chemical in the general population.” Id. As we did in Prest, we find that “the
   district court” actually “would have erred if it had not applied our toxic tort
   precedent and instead created a new standard.” Id. (citing Hesling v. CSX
   Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2005)) (emphasis in original).
          Second, and more to the point, Barrington’s “arguments are based on
   a flawed understanding of the general causation requirement.” Id. The core
   of Barrington’s “argument is that BP’s failure to conduct biomonitoring of
   oil spill workers and preserve data made it impossible for” Barrington “to
   reliably recreate dosage levels or otherwise quantify his exposure to the
   chemicals that caused his alleged injuries.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
   In this way, Barrington “puts the cart before the horse.” Id. Any “alleged
   failure to conduct biomonitoring and preserve data has no bearing on general
   causation”—it “almost always bears on specific causation.” Id. (quoting
   Byrd v. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc., No. 22-30654, 2023 WL 4046280, at *2 (5th

                                             4
Case: 23-30343         Document: 00517054550               Page: 5      Date Filed: 02/02/2024

                                          No. 23-30343

   Cir. June 16, 2023)). Thus, “even if Cook . . . had quantified” Barrington’s
   “exposure to chemicals that allegedly caused his injuries,” i.e., satisfied the
   specific causation requirement, Dr. Cook’s “expert testimony would still fail
   to satisfy general causation.” Id. (citing Johnson, 684 F.3d at 468-69 (finding
   no abuse of discretion in excluding an expert witness’s causation opinion
   when the expert provided a differential diagnosis without satisfying general
   causation requirement)). Again, as we held in Prest, we find that the district
   court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Cook’s opinion. Id.
            Moreover, expert testimony establishing general causation was
   required to survive BP’s motion for summary judgment. Id. Given that
   Barrington’s general causation expert’s opinion was properly excluded,
   summary judgment was therefore due. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
   322 (1986) (recognizing that summary judgment must be entered “against a
   party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
   element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the
   burden of proof at trial”). 2
                                               IV.
            For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district
   court.

            _____________________
            2
             We do not reach Barrington’s argument that “temporary symptoms or injuries
   do not require proof of a ‘dose’ to establish proof of general causation” because of various
   statements that BP made during a fairness hearing before the judge overseeing the
   Deepwater Horizon multi-district litigation in connection with the approval of the Medical
   Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. Barrington did not make this argument
   before the district court; it is forfeited. Rollins v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 8 F.4th 393, 397-
   98 (5th Cir. 2021).

                                                     5