Jones v. Lincoln Electric Company

188 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 1999)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P worked as a journeyman electrician and welder for approximately twenty-eight years, beginning in 1964 and ending in 1992, when his neurological disorder progressed to the point that he could no longer effectively weld. Ds are various manufacturers and distributors of welding rods that P used to arc weld. A small amount of the fumes generated by the burning of a mild steel welding rod consists of manganese. P was exposed to varying amounts of welding fumes, with the end result being that he was frequently forced to breathe the fumes, which included manganese, produced by Ds' welding rods. Too much manganese within the body can be toxic, causing injury to the brain or the rest of the nervous system and can lead to the onset of a form of Parkinsonism. Parkinsonism is a medical term used to describe a disease typified by a group of signs and symptoms similar to that seen in Parkinson's disease, a neurological disorder that is characterized by the causing of abnormal or slow bodily movements. A person suffering from a form of Parkinsonism will typically exhibit some or all of four general symptoms that are common to Parkinson's disease. P sought to hold Ds liable for neurological injuries he allegedly sustained as a result of his exposure to manganese present in fumes emitted from the welding rods that he used during the course of his employment as a welder. P claimed that Ds were negligent in the manufacture and distribution of the welding rods because they either knew or should have known of the dangers and hazards associated with the breathing of manganese in welding fumes and that Ds failed to take reasonable precautions against and failed to provide adequate warnings of the potential harm. P claimed that the rods were unreasonably dangerous, and Ds were strictly liable for his injuries because they failed to properly warn him of the risks associated with the use of their rods. There are several different forms or types of Parkinsonism, the two types relevant to this case are idiopathic Parkinson's disease and manganese-induced Parkinsonism or 'manganism.' Ds claimed that P suffered from idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Idiopathic Parkinson's disease is Parkinson's disease without a known cause. Parkinson's disease afflicts approximately one to two percent of the population over the age of fifty, although some patients begin to develop the disease under fifty years of age. Manganism, on the other hand, is quite rare with only a few documented cases in the United States. A Dr. Shannon diagnosed P with idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Dr. Galen also concluded that Jones suffered from idiopathic Parkinson's disease based on his examination of Jones and Jones's response to treatment but she was unaware of his exposure to magnesium. Ds introduced testimony from Jones's treating physicians, all of whom had diagnosed him with idiopathic Parkinson's disease, and the testimony from a paid medical expert, Dr. Olanow, who concurred with their assessment based upon his examination of Jones and a review of Jones's medical and work history. Dr. Olanow testified that an experienced neurologist can distinguish whether a patient suffers from idiopathic Parkinson's disease or manganism by conducting a clinical examination of the patient focusing on the symptoms exhibited and looking at the patient's response to certain medications. Dr. Olanow noted that the part of the brain most commonly affected by idiopathic Parkinson's disease is the substantia nigra; whereas manganism primarily affects two other parts of the brain known as the striatum and globus pallidus. Because the two diseases tend to affect different parts of the brain, a particular patient's response to certain medications is a strong indicator as to the type of Parkinsonism afflicting the patient. P relied on the testimony of Dr. Klawans who testified that it is not possible to determine whether a patient suffers from idiopathic Parkinson's disease or manganism by looking solely at the patient's clinical symptoms. Dr. Klawans believed the foremost and determinative factor was whether the patient has a history of manganese exposure. Dr. Klawans suggested that both diseases could cause a loss of dopamine in the brain and, therefore, a patient with manganism could respond favorably to dopamine replacement therapy. For that reason, Dr. Klawans also testified that he would prescribe sinemet or a similar dopamine replacement medication to a patient suffering from manganism. Dr. Klawans acknowledged that the two diseases tend to affect different parts of the brain, with idiopathic Parkinson's disease typically damaging the substantia nigra thereby causing the general signs and symptoms common to that disease. Dr. Klawans also agreed that manganese more often damages the globus pallidus and striatum than it does the substantia nigra, with the result being that patients with manganism usually will respond less well to dopamine replacement therapy than patients suffering from idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Dr. Klawans observed that Jones exhibited all of the symptoms common to idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Dr. Thomas Eager provided testimony for Ds about P's manganese exposure. Dr. Eager testified, that he conducted 'joint research' studying the effect of welding fumes in the lungs of laboratory animals with Dr. Joseph Brain and Dr. Gael Ulrich. Dr. Eager indicated that he worked with Dr. Brain for the last three to four years, that they had discussed their research activities with each other, and that they had published papers together and reached certain conclusions from their Joint Research. P claimed that Dr. Eager sought to testify about medical matters that were outside his expertise. Jones complained that the medical expert, Dr. Brain, was not present to discuss the conclusions reached regarding the body's ability to absorb manganese and the basis for those conclusions. The district court overruled P’s objection, concluding that the professors discussed their joint research and, in essence, taught one another their particular areas of expertise. The court allowed the testimony. D got the verdict. P appealed. P uncovered 'new' evidence which shows that Dr. Eager's testimony with regard to the Joint Research and the Caterpillar Study was false. P alleged that Dr. Eager testified falsely with respect to the facts that formed the basis for the district court's ruling that he had the necessary qualifications to provide testimony. P moved for a new trial under Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and filed a motion to show cause why Dr. Eager should not be held in contempt of court. Both motions were denied. The court held that: (1) certain portions of the 'newly discovered' evidence could have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b) and therefore this evidence was not 'new' within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(2) and (2) the remaining challenged testimony did not materially mischaracterize the purported truth of the underlying matters. It held that P failed to establish that a new trial without Dr. Eager's allegedly false testimony would probably produce a new result.