In Britt, a plaintiff brought suit against a number of defendants, arguing that simply visiting the defendants’ facilities caused his mesothelioma. The plaintiff’s critical expert witness was a doctor who espoused that any asbestos exposure experienced by the plaintiff at the defendants’ facilities was sufficient to establish causation. The trial court refused to exclude the expert’s testimony, and the defendants appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal.
The Institute, along with the Coalition for Litigation Justice (“Coalition”), wrote an amicus brief in support of the defendants, arguing that the court should establish a requirement of dose assessment for any expert supporting asbestos causation. Under the plaintiff’s expert’s theory, there was no need to identify the amount of asbestos exposure as any amount of asbestos exposure should be deemed causative of the plaintiff’s injury. But as the Institute and Coalition explained, asbestos like any other toxin requires some level of overall dose to produce disease. For this reason, most courts in other jurisdictions have required some form of scientific dose estimate before an expert can opine on causation. And these courts categorically reject the “any exposure” theory.
The Third District disagreed and affirmed the trial court, finding the trial court’s admission of the expert’s testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
FJRI represented by William L. Anderson of Crowell & Moring, LLP and Frank Cruz-Alvarez of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP.