Michael A. Bone v. Ames Taping Tool , 179 F.3d 1080 ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 98-2324
    ___________
    Michael A. Bone; Ramona Bone,       *
    *
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,       *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                             * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Ames Taping Tool Systems, Inc.      *
    *
    Defendant - Appellee.          *
    ___________
    Submitted: January 15, 1999
    Filed: June 8, 1999
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
    Michael Bone worked as a drywall taper for many years, using an automated
    taping gun known as the “Bazooka.” In late 1990, Bone began experiencing
    numbness and burning in his arms and hands. He has since been treated for
    cumulative injuries to his shoulders, elbows, and wrists. Bone and his wife sued the
    Bazooka’s manufacturer, Ames Taping Tool Systems, Inc., in Missouri state court,
    asserting product liability and loss of consortium claims. Ames removed, invoking
    the district court’s diversity jurisdiction. The Bones now appeal the district court’s
    grant of summary judgment for Ames on the question of causation. We review the
    grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence most favorably to the non-
    moving party. See Mullins v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 
    143 F.3d 1153
    , 1158 (8th Cir.
    1998). Concluding that the deposition testimony of plaintiffs’ medical experts is
    sufficient evidence that use of the Bazooka directly caused or contributed to cause
    Michael Bone’s injuries, we reverse and remand.
    Michael Bone taped drywall from 1980-1992, operating the Bazooka several
    hours each workday. The Bazooka weighed seventeen pounds when full of taping
    compound. It required repetitive wrist motions and considerable pressure to apply
    compound. With no convenient hand holds, it was awkward to support and
    maneuver, particularly while doing overhead work. Bone developed carpal tunnel
    syndrome in both wrists, rotator cuff damage to both shoulders, thoracic outlet
    syndrome affecting his neck and shoulders, and cubital tunnel syndrome in his
    elbows. When months of therapy and four surgeries failed to alleviate his discomfort,
    Bone quit taping because he could not work without severe pain and numbness.
    Under Missouri law, to prevail on a claim of strict liability, negligence, or
    breach of warranty, Bone must prove that his use of the Bazooka directly caused or
    contributed to cause some or all of his injuries. Missouri uses the “but-for” causation
    test; use of the Bazooka was a legal cause of Bone’s injuries if they would not have
    occurred “but for” that conduct. See Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hosp., 
    863 S.W.2d 852
    , 860-63 (Mo. banc 1993); Tenbarge v. Ames Taping Tool Sys., Inc., 
    128 F.3d 656
    , 659 n.3 (8th Cir. 1997). In a case involving multiple possible causes, a
    plaintiff must “exclude other causes by presenting substantial evidence that a
    particular cause for which defendant is liable is responsible for plaintiff’s injuries.”
    Kircher v. Purina Mills, Inc., 
    775 S.W.2d 115
    , 117 (Mo. banc 1989).
    The Bones rely on the deposition testimony of four treating physicians to prove
    causation. Dr. S. Vic Glogovac treated Michael Bone’s wrists for carpal tunnel
    syndrome. He opined that the forceful, repetitive flexion and extension of Bone’s
    -2-
    wrists created pressure on the carpal tunnel, causing nerve damage over an extended
    period of time. He attributed the pressure to Bone’s use of his hands at work,
    specifically to his operating the heavy Bazooka for several hours a day. The district
    court dismissed Dr. Glogovac’s opinion as not being stated “to a reasonable degree
    of medical certainty.”1 However, Dr. Glogovac testified:
    Q Doctor, is your opinion in that regard based upon reasonable
    medical certainty?
    A Yes.
    Dr. Glogovac’s deposition testimony is sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue
    of material fact whether the Bazooka caused Michael Bone’s wrist injuries.
    “Absolute certainty is not required.” Lemm v. Gould, 
    425 S.W.2d 190
    , 200 (Mo.
    1968).
    Dr. Susan Mackinnon treated Michael Bone’s shoulder problems. She testified
    that his “use of that Bazooka gun definitely contributed to the development of
    thoracic outlet syndrome.” She also opined that his thoracic outlet syndrome would
    aggravate cubital tunnel syndrome, the elbow injuries Michael developed. She
    acknowledged that other overhead activities would be aggravating factors but found
    Bone’s use of the Bazooka most significant because it involved supporting a heavy
    object while working overhead. The district court dismissed this testimony because
    1
    Many Missouri cases state that a medical expert’s opinions must be expressed
    to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. When the issue is causation, this requires
    the expert to have a “reasonable certainty in his mind” that “the result in question
    most probably came from the cause assigned.” “[O]pinions of experts that a certain
    occurrence or condition might or could produce a certain result . . . does not alone
    constitute substantial evidence that such occurrence or condition did cause it.”
    Kinealy v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 
    368 S.W.2d 400
    , 404-05 (Mo. 1963).
    -3-
    it was not stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Again, that issue was
    sufficiently covered in Dr. Mackinnon’s deposition:
    Q Doctor, have all the opinions that you’ve given here . . . been
    based upon your education, training, experience, your treatment of Mike
    Bone to a reasonable medical certainty?
    A Yes.
    We conclude Dr. Mackinnon’s deposition testimony is sufficient evidence to raise a
    genuine issue of material fact whether the Bazooka caused or contributed to Michael
    Bone’s shoulder and elbow injuries.
    We agree with the district court that the deposition testimony of plaintiffs’
    other treating physicians did not create a genuine issue of material fact as to
    causation. Dr. Robert Markenson discussed generally how overhead work can cause
    or contribute to rotator cuff tendinitis in the shoulders, but he did not attribute
    Michael’s shoulder injuries specifically to his use of the Bazooka. Dr. Richard
    Lehmann testified that Bone’s use of the Bazooka “probably” caused his shoulder
    problems, but he did not have sufficient knowledge of Bone’s work activities to
    provide a foundation for that rather hesitant opinion. Nevertheless, giving the Bones
    the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the testimony of Dr. Glogovac and Dr.
    Mackinnon provide sufficient evidence of causation under Missouri law to defeat
    Ames’s motion for summary judgment on this issue.
    The Bones also seek review of the district court’s pretrial ruling that the
    opinion testimony of their design engineer and ergonomics expert on the issue of the
    Bazooka’s alleged defective design must be excluded under Daubert v. Merrell Dow
    Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 
    509 U.S. 579
    (1993). The Supreme Court recently emphasized
    that district courts must screen the reliability of all expert testimony but have
    substantial discretion in deciding how to test an expert’s reliability and whether the
    -4-
    expert’s relevant testimony is reliable. See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 
    119 S. Ct. 1167
    , 1174-76 (1999). We decline to consider this pretrial evidentiary ruling at this
    point in the lawsuit, particularly since it is not at all clear what impact the ruling will
    have on the ultimate disposition of plaintiffs’ claims, whether by summary judgment
    or after trial. See Newman v. Ford Motor Co., 
    975 S.W.2d 147
    , 152-54 (Mo. banc
    1998); Tune v. Synergy Gas Corp., 
    883 S.W.2d 10
    , 14 (Mo. banc 1994).
    The judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded for
    further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -5-