A federal judge in Pennsylvania has refused to exclude expert testimony concerning asbestos exposure in a wrongful death lawsuit involving a former Philadelphia Naval Shipyard worker.
The ruling from late last month allows a materials-science expert to testify about the asbestos content of products manufactured by John Crane Inc., how asbestos fibers could have been released from those products and the potential level of exposure experienced by workers nearby.
The lawsuit was filed by Jean Cox, widow of David Cox, who worked as a pipefitter and insulator at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard from 1974 to 1987. Cox was diagnosed with lung cancer in August 2022 and died less than two weeks later.
His widow alleges that occupational exposure to asbestos, including asbestos contained in John Crane gaskets and packing materials, contributed to his disease and death.
John Crane Challenged Expert’s Asbestos Analysis
John Crane asked U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III to exclude portions of testimony from Dr. Steven Compton, a physicist and microscopist who has researched asbestos since 2009.
Compton analyzed historical gasket and packing materials and reviewed studies measuring how asbestos fibers can be released when asbestos-containing products are disturbed.
His report included testing of six John Crane gasket and packing products designed for industrial or marine environments. According to the court, the tested products contained chrysotile asbestos, with some also containing amphibole asbestos.
Compton also relied on testimony from one of Cox’s former coworkers, who described working with John Crane products near Cox while pipefitters and boilermakers removed and replaced gaskets, packing and other insulation materials.
Based on that testimony and his testing, Compton concluded that work involving asbestos-containing products could release fibers into the air where they could be inhaled by both the worker handling the material and other people nearby.
Company Argued Opinions Were Too Speculative
John Crane argued that Compton could not reliably connect the products he tested with the specific products Cox may have encountered decades earlier.
The company also challenged Compton’s qualifications to interpret industrial hygiene data because he is not an industrial hygienist.
Judge Bartle rejected those arguments.
The court found that Compton’s education and nearly two decades of asbestos-related research qualified him to evaluate studies measuring asbestos released from products.
The judge also concluded that Compton had a sufficient factual basis for comparing the tested John Crane products with materials likely used aboard ships and around high-temperature steam equipment at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.
John Crane could dispute Compton’s conclusions at trial, the court said, but disagreement with an expert’s conclusions did not make the methodology inadmissible.
The judge ultimately denied John Crane’s motion to partially exclude Compton’s testimony.
Why the Asbestos Expert Ruling Matters for Naval Shipyard Workers
Proving asbestos exposure can be particularly difficult because illnesses associated with asbestos may develop decades after the original exposure.
Workers may no longer remember specific product names, coworkers may be unavailable and many of the products involved have long since been removed from workplaces.
As a result, asbestos lawsuits often rely on combinations of coworker testimony, historical product records, scientific testing and expert analysis to reconstruct how exposure may have occurred.
The Cox ruling does not determine whether John Crane caused David Cox’s lung cancer or whether the company will ultimately be held liable. Instead, it allows the plaintiff’s expert evidence to remain part of the case as the litigation moves forward.
The case is Cox v. Foster Wheeler, LLC et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00305, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Explore More Asbestos Coverage
Read MedTruth's reporting on asbestos exposure, related health risks, and litigation involving manufacturers and employers.