Photo: Flickr/Alpha

The New York Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments this week on whether expert testimony on the potential link between certain asbestos-containing products and a mechanic's mesothelioma was enough for a jury to find Ford Motor Co. partly liable for the worker's illness.

The arguments are on an appeal from the Appellate Division, First Department, which decided that the jury's decision could not be upheld because the experts at trial failed to quantify the mechanic's exposure to asbestos, and therefore could not directly link Ford's products to his disease.

Associate Judge Paul Feinman, who was appointed to the Court of Appeals last year, was the single dissenting opinion from the Appellate Division on the case. He has recused himself from the matter.

The case has the potential to assert a stricter standard in personal injury cases when the claimant is seeking relief from exposure to a toxic substance, such as asbestos. If affirmed by the Court of Appeals, claimants will have to show they were exposed to a sufficient amount of the toxin to cause their disease.

Arthur Juni Jr. brought the lawsuit against Ford and others in 2012, claiming exposure to their products caused his mesothelioma. He worked on Ford vehicles as an auto mechanic at Orange & Rockland for more than four decades, ending in 2009.

Juni alleged in the lawsuit that he worked without a respirator to protect him from chrysotile asbestos fibers for the first 25 years at the company, where he handled asbestos-containing products installed or supplied by Ford.

Juni died two years after he brought the lawsuit but his wife continued as the plaintiff. The trial ended with the jury awarding his estate $8 million for pain and suffering and his wife $3 million for her loss. The jury apportioned Ford with 49 percent of the liability.

Ford moved to set aside the verdict, arguing that there was insufficient evidence tying their products to Juni's disease. The trial court granted their motion and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Juni's case is now represented before the Court of Appeals by Alani Golanski, director of the appellate litigation unit at Weitz & Luxenberg, a Manhattan firm specializing in cases involving exposure to asbestos and other environmental toxins.

They called two expert witnesses to link Juni's exposure to asbestos from Ford's products to his mesothelioma, but the Appellate Division said in its decision last year that their testimony wasn't enough to hold Ford liable.

“Plaintiff's experts effectively testified only in terms of an increased risk and association between asbestos and mesothelioma, but failed to either quantify the decedent's exposure levels or otherwise provide any scientific expression of his exposure level with respect to Ford's products,” the appellate court wrote.

That argument is based on the Court of Appeals decision in Parker v. Mobil Oil. That case involved a lawsuit from a gas station worker who alleged exposure to benzene in gasoline caused him to develop a form of leukemia. The Court of Appeals decided in that case that there needed to be evidence that the person was exposed to sufficient levels of a toxin to cause the disease.

Attorneys for Ford argued in their brief to the Court of Appeals that the experts called in Juni's case did not meet that requirement. Ford is represented by Tennille Checkovich from McGuireWoods in Richmond, Virginia, and Nancy Pennie from Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein and Deutsch in Manhattan.

“To the extent the Junis actually attempt to identify evidence supporting their claims as to general causation, they rely on an admittedly flawed study that is incapable of illuminating the causation inquiry and they contort the testimony of Ford's experts,” Ford's brief said. “This approach plainly fails to satisfy the requirements set forth in Parker and its progeny with respect to the foundation and sufficiency of expert general causation testimony, as the Supreme Court properly held.”

Ford also argued that the type of asbestos fibers Juni was exposed to are considered less potent than the type of fibers found in other places, like insulation.

Juni's attorneys said in their brief that while they couldn't provide the amount of asbestos he was exposed to over a course of decades, their experts sufficiently testified that such prolonged exposure would significantly contribute to the risk of developing mesothelioma, regardless of the fibers' potency.

“Ford similarly attempted to fault plaintiff's causation experts for not supplying the precise numerical quantifications that Mr. Juni naturally could not provide, and hence that were not available to the experts some 40 years later,” Golanski wrote. “At the same time, Ford asked the Appellate Division to ignore the compelling quantification evidence that is included in the record, introduced via expert testimony and via Ford's trove of internal scientific documents.”

The Appellate Division contended in its decision that it did consider the scientific evidence presented at trial and dismissed it based on previously established standards. One of the expert witnesses testified about a study that linked exposure to certain asbestos fibers to mesothelioma, but also acknowledged other studies that did not show such a connection, the appellate court said.

“Here, the experts' broad conclusions on causation lacked a sufficient foundation, and were therefore legally insufficient to establish that Juni's exposure to asbestos from brakes, clutches, or gaskets sold or distributed by defendant constituted a significant contributing factor in causing Juni's mesothelioma,” the court's decision said.

Appellate Division Justices David Saxe and Peter Tom were on the majority opinion last year with a concurring opinion from Justice Marcy Kahn. A decision in the case will likely come down in November.

READ MORE:

Court of Appeals Rejects James' Appeal Over Authority to Sue as NYC Public Advocate

Court of Appeals Examines Conditions for Funding of Charter Schools Pre-K

Goodyear Says Opposing Counsel's 'Steady Stream of Insults' Led to $40M Asbestos Verdict