Meza v. H. Muehlstein & Co.
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.
Court 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.
Court 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.
Comments on Meza v. H. Muehlstein & Co.