Occupational Medicine Expert Witness’ Testimony Admitted Because He Performed Independent Research on Susac Syndrome
Posted on November 5, 2024 by Expert Witness Profiler
This case concerns claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff, Jeremy West (“West”), was hired by Defendant BNSF in January 2014 as a conductor and later as an engineer after receiving his engineer certification.
In 2020, West was diagnosed with a rare medical condition, Susac Syndrome, which if untreated can cause severe headaches; confusion; problems with thinking, such as short-term memory loss, slow thought processing and reduced ability to solve problems; slurred speech; walking difficulties; and/or changes in personality. For the next year, he was treated with medication to manage his disorder. West applied and received intermittent FMLA leave in September 2020 to attend routine appointments related to his condition. West re-applied for FMLA leave in September 2021 to continue attending routine appointments. He was subsequently removed from his position at BNSF in September 21, 2021. West initiated the present action against BNSF alleging he was effectively terminated in violation of the ADA and FMLA.
On September 3, 2024, BNSF filed a motion to exclude the testimony of West’s expert witness, Dr. Kevin Trangle.
Occupational Medicine Expert Witness
Dr. Kevin Trangle has over 40 years of experience as a board-certified physician in internal medicine, occupational medicine, and preventive medicine. He obtained his medical degree from the University of Minnesota Medical School in 1978 and also holds an MBA in healthcare management from Case Western Reserve University. He has served as a medical director for numerous corporations and organizations. His experience encompasses all aspects of occupational medicine including diagnosis and treatment of work-related injuries, disability evaluations, return to work assessments, corporate wellness programs, and substance abuse programs.
Trangle has provided expert consultation services for attorneys, government agencies, and insurers. He has given dozens of presentations to professional organizations on occupational health topics and has published extensively in medical journals. Trangle has particular expertise regarding workplace chemical exposures, having worked extensively with the chemical industry and conducted research on industrial solvents and chemical sensitivity issues. He has also managed corporate drug testing and substance abuse programs.
Discussion by the Court
At West’s behest, Trangle conducted a review of West’s medical records and produced an Independent Medical Evaluation (“IME”) report. In his report, Trangle opined that BNSF “erred in its determination that West could not safely return to his job as a Conductor. Specifically, Aquino’s characterization of West as having a condition which posed an unacceptable future risk of sudden incapacitation was unjustified and based on an improper FFD process . . . .”
BNSF argues Trangle’s report and proposed testimony should be excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 702 because his analysis is unreliable, irrelevant, and unduly prejudicial. Specifically, BNSF asserts that Trangle is not qualified to opine on risk assessments in the railroad industry and his conclusions do not rely on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge as required by FRE 702. BNSF argues Trangle’s proposed testimony is unreliable because it is based on subjective belief and unsupported speculation.
Analysis
West sought to use Trangle’s report and proposed testimony to challenge BNSF’s risk assessment and subsequent finding that West presented a significant risk and needed to be removed from service.
BNSF’s chief medical officer, Dr. Theodore Aquino, ultimately made the decision to pull West from service after a conversation with West’s neurologist, Dr. Jessica Craddock, and performing independent research on Susac Syndrome. Susac Syndrome is a very rare neurological condition that Aquino had admittedly not heard of prior to BNSF’s diagnosis. Aquino based his conclusion in large part on Craddock’s recommendation that BNSF should not be performing his job as a locomotive engineer. The Court held that Trangle has also examined BNSF’s medical records, Craddock’s findings and performed independent research on Susac Syndrome, thus his testimony is directly relevant to West’s challenge of Aquino’s findings.
Qualifications
BNSF argued Trangle is not qualified to opine on this matter because he has no relevant knowledge, skill, experience, training or education. The Court disagreed. Trangle specializes in occupational medicine and has relied on his specialized knowledge as an occupational medicine doctor in numerous cases related to risk tolerance under the ADA fitness for duty assessment framework. As for Trangle’s knowledge on Susac Syndrome itself, he appeared to have a similar level of background knowledge on the condition as Aquino given that neither were familiar with the condition before West’s diagnosis and this case.
Reliability
BNSF argued that Trangle’s testimony is unreliable because his opinion is based on his subjective belief and is wholly speculative. Aquino came to his conclusions after a discussion with Craddock and independent research. Somewhat similarly, Trangle came to his conclusions after reviewing West’s medical records, Aquino and West’s deposition transcripts, West’s job requirements, and research articles.
Trangle reviewed the underlying facts necessary to support his testimony challenging Aquino’s findings. For these reasons, the Court finds Trangle’s testimony to be both relevant to this case and reliable.
Held
The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Kevin Trangle.
Key Takeaway:
Trangle was not familiar with Susac Syndrome before West’s diagnosis and this case but he has more than made up for the same by reviewing West’s medical records, Aquino and West’s deposition transcripts, West’s job requirements, and research articles.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | West V. BNSF Railway Co |
| Docket Number: | 2:23cv106 |
| Court: | United States District Court, Washington Eastern |
| Order Date: | November 01, 2024 |
