Physics Expert Allowed to Offer Opinions Quantifying the Release of Asbestos Fibers

David Cox served in the Navy as a pipefitter and shipfitter from 1970 to 1974 and was a pipefitter and insulator employed by the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard from 1974 to 1987. Cox was diagnosed with lung cancer in August 2022 and died less than two weeks later. Jean C. Cox, his widow, as the Administratrix of his estate and in her own right, has brought survival and wrongful death actions against Defendants John Crane, Inc. ("John Crane") and Watts Regulator Co. ("Watts"). She asserted in her second amended complaint that her late husband's death resulted from his exposure to asbestos contained in John Crane's packing and gasket materials as well as Watts' steam traps and pressure-reducing valves on various Navy ships on which he worked.

Defendant John Crane Inc. filed a motion to partially exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's material science expert, Dr. Steven P. Compton.

Physics Expert Witness

Dr. Steven Patrick Compton is a physicist and microscopist. He received a Bachelor of Science and Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Georgia. He has worked for MVA Scientific Consultants ("MVA"), an analytical microscopy laboratory, since 2009, and he has served as its Executive Director since 2014.

Want to know more about the challenges Steven Compton has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

Discussion by the Court

In his report, Compton opined that some gaskets and packing, including those manufactured by John Crane, contain chrysotile asbestos. Compton relied on the testimony of Albert Pappalardo, a former co-worker of Cox, to support his opinions related to Cox.

Defendant challenged five of Compton's opinions. These include: (1) opinions about the asbestos content of any John Crane products Cox may have encountered; (2) opinions that John Crane products contained amphibole asbestos; (3) opinions concerning the releasability of asbestos fibers from any John Crane products Cox may have encountered; (4) opinions regarding the quantity of asbestos allegedly released from John Crane products Cox may have encountered; and (5) opinions comparing the concentration of dust around Cox from John Crane products to the concentration of ambient asbestos.

Reliability

Defendant argued that several of the challenged opinions are unreliable because they are not grounded in and do not reliably flow from the facts of this case and are based on an unreliable methodology.

First, Defendant argued that Compton's opinions on the asbestos content of John Crane products Cox may have encountered, the releasability of asbestos fibers from those John Crane products, and the quantity of asbestos fibers released from those products are unreliable. It highlights that Compton has opined that the amount of asbestos someone is exposed to depends on the amount of asbestos in the product or dust and how the product or dust is manipulated.

Defendant maintained that the testimony of Pappalardo, the only witness to testify on Cox's alleged exposure to John Crane products, is too inconsistent and unspecific to form the basis for Compton's opinions on John Crane's products. Pappalardo did not identify specific John Crane products near Cox, making it unclear how much asbestos, if any, was in them.

Pappalardo, however, did testify that he worked with John Crane products, including in Cox's vicinity. Compton infers that these products had to be able to withstand high heat and steam and be suitable for industrial or marine uses because Pappalardo and Cox worked near and with steam equipment on ships.

Defendant also argued that these three opinions on the asbestos content and release of asbestos from John Crane products rely on irrelevant tests and studies. Some of the tests listed among Compton's reliance materials are not related to John Crane products specifically. Compton also relied on a study in which he measured the amount of asbestos released from scraping gasket residue from a Crane Co. valve recovered from a naval vessel. Defendant contended that Compton cannot identify the manufacturer of the gasket that was tested in this study. Defendant additionally points to a "lack of contemporaneous air sampling data." But several of the studies and tests that Compton relies on are specific to John Crane gaskets and packing produced for marine and industrial uses. That Compton did not rely on all available studies and relied on studies unrelated to John Crane do not make his opinions on John Crane products unreliable.

Compton's opinions on the asbestos content of John Crane products encountered by Cox, the releasability of asbestos fibers from those products, and the quantity of asbestos fibers released from those products are therefore based on sufficient facts and methodology to be considered reliable. They will not be excluded.

Next, Defendant sought to exclude Compton's opinion that John Crane products contained amphibole asbestos as speculative. Compton has based his opinion that John Crane products contained amphibole asbestos on his knowledge of chrysotile and amphibole mines, studies conducted by him and MVA, and Pappalardo's testimony on the kinds of materials used around Cox. His opinion reliably flows from the facts known to him and his methodology, and his opinion on amphibole asbestos will not be precluded.

Finally, Defendant contended that Compton's opinion comparing the level of asbestos around Cox to ambient levels of asbestos should be excluded because it improperly relies on a 2001 publication by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). This ultimately goes to the weight of Compton's opinions, and Defendant may cross-examine him or proffer contrary evidence.

Qualification

In challenging Compton's opinion that John Crane products released asbestos fibers and quantifying such releases, Defendant argued that Compton is not qualified to analyze industrial hygiene studies. To be qualified, an expert witness must possess specialized expertise.

As noted above, Compton has a Ph.D. in Physics and is a microscopist. During his seventeen years at MVA, his research has focused on asbestos, including the release of asbestos fibers. He has performed tests to measure how much asbestos products release and has worked on issues related to industrial hygiene and environmental forensics. In sum, he has nearly two decades of experience researching asbestos and has quantified asbestos releases himself. Compton is qualified to analyze industrial hygiene studies and to proffer opinions quantifying the release of asbestos fibers from John Crane products.

Held

The Court denied the motion to partially exclude the testimony of Dr. Steven Compton.

Key Takeaway

Experts are not required to cite every possible study or test result, and failure to do so does not make their opinion unreliable and inadmissible. While Defendant points to evidence that contradicts Compton's opinions, Plaintiff need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that his opinions are reliable, not correct.

Please refer to the blog previously published about this case:

Naval Architecture Expert Allowed to Opine on Warning Requirements and Practices

Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Lost Retirement Income

Case Details: