Meza v. H. Muehlstein & Co.

Filed 1/19/07  Meza v. H. Muehlstein & Co. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los  Angeles County, Daniel Solis Pratt, Judge.  Reversed and remanded.

            Metzger Law Group, Raphael Metzger and Gregory A. Coolidge for Plaintiff and Appellant.

            Pollard Cranert Crawford & Stevens, Michelle M. Lambre and Joyce  L. Mavredakis for Defendant and Respondent H. Muehlstein & Company, Inc.

            Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Curtis D. Parvin and Richard A. Crites for Defendant and Respondent Talco Plastics, Inc.

            Tropio & Morlan, Scott T. Tropio and Christopher J. Hammond for Defendant and Respondent Lucent Polymers, Inc.

            Veatch Huang, Veatch Carlson, James C. Galloway and Douglas S. Fabian for Defendant and Respondent Nova Polymers.

            Poole & Shaffery, John Shaffery and John F. Grannis for Defendant and Respondent Polyone Distribution Company.

            Pond North, Frank D. Pond and Sandra L. Gryder for Defendant and Respondent Exchange Plastics Corp.

____________________________

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Teresa Meza (plaintiff) sued a number of defendants in relation to alleged toxic tort injuries.  Plaintiff alleged that as a result of occupational exposure to plastic dust and fumes, she contracted asthma and interstitial pulmonary lung fibrosis.  

Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court ruled that the testimony of plaintiff's expert witnesses on medical causation was not admissible.  The court found that the proffered testimony was conclusory and lacked foundation.  The court further found that plaintiff failed to show she had or could obtain admissible expert evidence to establish causation.   The trial court dismissed the case and entered judgment in favor of defendants and respondents.

On appeal, plaintiff contends the trial court erred substantively, asserting that the testimony of her expert witnesses on medical causation was not conclusory; that the testimony was supported by sufficient foundation; and that plaintiff's experts presented sufficient testimony to show to a reasonable degree of medical probability that her occupational exposure to plastic dusts and fumes was a substantial factor in causing her asthma and interstitial pulmonary fibrosis.  Plaintiff also contends the trial court erred procedurally by the manner in which it conducted the evidentiary hearing.

We reverse and remand.  The opinions of plaintiff's expert medical causation witnesses were not speculative or conclusory.  Plaintiff's expert medical witnesses set forth a reasonable explanation of why plaintiff's exposure to the products was more likely than not the cause of her asthma and lung disease.  The opinions were therefore supported by sufficient foundation.

We have no occasion to address plaintiff's contentions regarding whether the trial court erred procedurally by the manner in which it conducted the evidentiary hearing.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND    

1.         Plaintiff Files Suit

On August 21, 2001, plaintiff filed suit for toxic tort injuries against approximately 16 manufacturers and distributors of plastics used for injection molding processes.  By the first amended complaint, plaintiff alleged causes of action for negligence, strict liability--failure to warn, strict liability--design defect, fraudulent concealment and breach of implied warranties.

Plaintiff alleged that she worked as a sorter and packager for Aztec Concrete Accessories, Inc. (Aztec) from March 1996 to September 2000.  Plaintiff alleged that she contracted asthma and interstitial pulmonary lung fibrosis (interstitial lung disease) from exposure to plastic dust and fumes released during her employer's use of defendants' products in the plastic molding injection process.

In the first amended complaint, plaintiff identified a number of plastic products which allegedly caused her injuries.  On appeal, plaintiff explains that the products fall into six categories:  (1) polypropylene, (2) polycarbonate, (3) polyvinylchloride, (4)  nylon, (5) polystyrene, and (6) polyethylene.  In her complaint, plaintiff further alleged that each of these six substances was a known cause of her asthma and interstitial lung disease.

2.         The Case Management Order

On February 26, 2003, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendants' and plaintiff's competing proposals for a case management order.  The trial court ruled that the issue of medical causation would not be litigated by means of the case management order.^[1]  The trial court ordered the parties to submit proposed case management orders â€