Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB

James Westberry (plaintiff) worked for a window manufacturer. As part of his job, he was required to handle rubber gaskets during the manufacturing process. Westberry’s company bought its rubber gaskets from Gislaved Gummi AB (GGAB) (defendant). GGAB used a talcum-powder lubricant on its gaskets. After handling the GGAB gaskets, Westberry began to experience severe sinus issues. Westberry sued GGAB for its failure to warn of the dangers of handling and inhaling the talcum powder. At trial, Westberry offered testimony outlining his significant exposure to talcum powder. Westberry called his treating physician, Dr. David Isenhower, Jr., to testify that the talcum powder caused Westberry’s sinus issues. Specifically, Isenhower made his claim relying on a differential diagnosis, which is a scientific technique of ruling out other causes of a medical issue until the most probable cause remains. Generally, a differential diagnosis includes physical examinations, lab tests, and a review of the patient’s medical history. Isenhower also relied on the temporal relationship of Westberry experiencing sinus issues soon after first being exposed to the talcum powder. GGAB argued that these methodologies were not sufficiently reliable to permit the testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The district court overruled GGAB’s objection, and the jury returned a verdict in Westberry’s favor. GGAB appealed.