Grimes v. CBS Corporation

Background

John J. Grimes worked as an apprentice coppersmith at the Brooklyn Navy Yard from October 1961 through January 1963. He worked in a shop and aboard warships, including the USS Constellation. He testified that he saw workers installing and removing valves, gaskets, insulation, and other equipment, that some valves bore the name “Crane,” and that the work areas were dusty. Grimes later developed mesothelioma and died in December 2017. Linda F. Phelps, the administratrix of his estate, continued this action against Crane Co. and other defendants.

Crane Co. moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Supreme Court’s Daubert standard to exclude or limit testimony from three experts. Gary Crakes offered opinions about Grimes’s lost earnings, work-life expectancy, fringe benefits, and lost household services. Steven Paskal, an industrial hygienist, offered opinions about the range of asbestos exposure Grimes could have experienced. Dr. David Zhang offered opinions about whether asbestos exposure caused Grimes’s mesothelioma and whether exposure connected to Crane Co. products could have been a substantial factor.

Crane Co. also moved for summary judgment. It argued that the estate lacked evidence connecting Crane Co.’s products to Grimes’s disease, including evidence about asbestos-containing gaskets or insulation, the source and extent of Grimes’s exposure, and specific medical causation.

Expert testimony

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion concerning Crakes’s testimony. It excluded testimony based on Grimes’s 2014 income because that amount was an outlier and on the 2019 median income for New York attorneys because that figure was too broad and was not grounded in Grimes’s actual work location, practice area, or earnings history. The court allowed testimony based on Grimes’s median income from 2014 through 2016. Challenges to the use of other income years went to the weight of the evidence rather than admissibility.

The court allowed Crakes to testify using five- and nine-year work-life estimates because those figures were supported by testimony and statistical information. It excluded his fringe-benefit calculations because they relied on national averages without evidence that Grimes actually received those benefits. It allowed his lost-household-services calculations, also based on national averages, because Crane Co. had not identified a serious flaw in that approach. The court denied Crane Co.’s request for a separate hearing on Crakes’s testimony.

The court denied Crane Co.’s motion to exclude Paskal’s testimony. It concluded that Paskal’s exposure ranges rested on factual assumptions that the estate could seek to establish through Grimes’s testimony and other expert testimony. The court said disputes about gaps or inconsistencies in Paskal’s reasoning could be addressed through cross-examination and competing evidence. It also denied the request for a separate hearing on Paskal’s testimony.

The court denied Crane Co.’s motion to limit Zhang’s specific-causation testimony. It held that Zhang could answer hypothetical questions based on facts established at trial, including evidence about Grimes’s observations of work on Crane Co. valves, the presence of those valves on ships, and estimated asbestos exposure levels. The court also found that Zhang’s use of a “cumulative exposure” theory was sufficiently reliable for admission under Rule 702. Crane Co. could challenge the assumptions and methodology through cross-examination.

The court did not consider a new affidavit from Zhang for purposes of deciding the motion. It required further briefing before ruling on whether that affidavit was admissible under the expert-disclosure rules.

Summary judgment

The court denied Crane Co.’s motion for summary judgment. Applying New York law for purposes of the opinion, the court held that the estate had presented enough evidence to create genuine disputes about specific causation. That evidence included Grimes’s testimony, the experts’ opinions, and ship records concerning Crane Co. valves and asbestos-containing insulation.

The court rejected Crane Co.’s argument that the estate had no evidence that materials used with Crane Co. valves contained asbestos. The court also rejected the argument that Grimes’s testimony was too vague about the frequency, proximity, or source of his exposure. Viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the estate’s favor, the court found a genuine issue about whether asbestos exposure from Crane Co. products was a substantial factor in causing Grimes’s mesothelioma.

Disposition

Crane Co.’s Daubert motions were granted in part and denied in part. The motion concerning Crakes’s testimony was partly granted and partly denied; the motions concerning Paskal’s and Zhang’s testimony were denied; the requests for Daubert hearings were denied as unnecessary; and Crane Co.’s motion for summary judgment was denied.