News & Insights

Recent Posts

WSHB's Constance Endelicato To Speak at ASHRM 2019 Annual Conference

Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Website Accessibility

Strategies for Defending Legionella and Mold Claims

Residential Revolution

Time Limit Demand Issues Arrive in North Carolina

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Julie A. Weerth to the Firm's New York Office

Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action

Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?

WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

WSHB Partner Jade Tran Named to Lawyers of Color's "Nation's Best" List

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

WSHB Partner Nancy Quinn Koba Elected Supreme Court Justice for the Ninth District

WSHB Washington Case Law Update: Toxic Tort Admissibility of Expert Testimony

February 14, 2014

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Vacates $9.3 Million Asbestos Verdict
Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc.

 

Holding

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a $9.3 million asbestos verdict, holding that the US District Court for the Western District of Washington erred in admitting expert testimony without undergoing a Daubert hearing and without making the necessary findings of relevancy and reliability under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.  It also held that a reviewing court can properly make findings related to expert testimony admissibility if it “decides the record is sufficient to determine whether expert testimony is relevant and reliable…”

Facts
 
Plaintiff Henry Barabin alleged that he was exposed to asbestos while working at a paper mill, which caused pleural mesothelioma, a rare cancer affecting the tissue sourrounding the lungs.  Prior to trial, Defendants moved to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’ industrial hygienist,  Kenneth Cohen, arguing that he was not qualified to testify and that his theory was not the product of scientific methodology.  Defendants also moved to exclude expert Dr. James Millette arguing that his tests were unreliable due to marked differences between testing conditions and actual conditions at the paper mill.  Defendants also sought to exclude any testimony regarding the theory that “every asbestos fiber is causative.”  The court initially excluded the testimony of Cohen but subsequently reversed its decision after Plaintiffs presented further information regarding the factual basis for the expert’s testimony and related testimony in other trials.  The court did not hold a Daubert hearing related to the testimony of any expert and all of the testimony was allowed at trial.  The disctrict court essentially passed to the jury its concerns with the reliability of the expert testimony.  
 
Why This Case Is Important
 
This case highlights the trial court’s function as a gatekeeper to exclude junk science that does not “logically advance a material aspect of the party’s case” and has no “reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline.”  Reliability rests upon a number of non-exhaustive factors: (1) whether the scientific theory or technique can be (and has been tested); (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) whether there is a known or potential error rate; and (4) whether the theory or technique is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.  It is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to relinquish its gatekeeper role and delegate the evaluation of expert testimony to the jury.

 

 

PRINT

Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2019 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required