William Hecht v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant William Hecht. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 1 of 22

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10447
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cv-11228-WGY-HTS

WILLIAM HECHT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,
individually and as successor by merger to the Brown and
Williamson Tobacco Corporation and the American Tobacco Company
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants- Appellees,
LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, et al,
Defendants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(September 25, 2017)

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 2 of 22

Before TJOFLAT and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges, and REEVES, * District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant William Hecht appeals the jury verdict and judgment in
this Engle-progeny case.1 After developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(“COPD”), Hecht brought a products liability action against Defendant-Appellee
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“RJR”) and other cigarette manufacturers,2
claiming they negligently and fraudulently concealed information about the

*

Honorable Danny C. Reeves, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, sitting by designation
1
In May 1994, six named individuals filed a class-action complaint against several
major tobacco companies, including Defendant-Appellee R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
seeking damages for alleged injuries from smoking cigarettes. See Liggett Group, Inc. v. Engle,
853 So. 2d 434, 440 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 2003); Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246
(Fla. 2006), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 941 (2007), and reh’g denied, 552 U.S. 1056 (2007) (referred
to collectively as “Engle”). The class consisted of all Florida citizens, residents, and their
survivors, “who have suffered, presently suffer or who have died from diseases and medical
conditions caused by their addiction to cigarettes that contain nicotine.” Engle, 945 So. 2d at
1256. The trial court divided the trial into three phases. During Phase I, the jury concluded that
the defendants “placed cigarettes on the market that were defective and unreasonably
dangerous.” Id. at 1257 n.4. The jury also found that the Engle defendants were negligent and
concealed material information about the health effects or addiction risks of smoking cigarettes
(or both). Id. During Phase II, the same jury determined that the defendants were liable to three
class representatives and awarded those representatives approximately $12.7 million in
compensatory damages. Id. at 1257. The jury also awarded the entire class punitive damages in
the amount of $145 billion. Id. The defendants filed an interlocutory appeal, and the Florida
Supreme Court reversed the award of punitive damages as premature and excessive and decided
to decertify the class going forward. Id. at 1263-69, 1265 n8. Although the Florida Supreme
Court decided that the case could not continue as a class action, it allowed former class members
to file their own individual actions and held that, in those actions, most of the Engle Phase I jury
findings would be entitled to “res judicata effect.” Id. at 1269. These individual actions are now
commonly known as Engle-progeny cases. Hecht’s action is one of those cases.
2
By the time the case went to trial, RJR was the only remaining defendant.
2

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

harmful effects of smoking cigarettes.3

Page: 3 of 22

At trial, a dispositive issue was whether

Hecht’s lawsuit was filed within the applicable four-year statute of limitations. See
Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3).

Both parties agreed that, under the relevant statute of

limitations, Hecht’s claims were untimely if they accrued before May 5, 1990.
After considering the evidence, the jury found Hecht’s claims to be time-barred, so
the district court entered judgment in favor of RJR.
On appeal, Hecht claims the district court erred when it instructed the jury
on RJR’s statute-of-limitations defense. 4

He asserts the instruction was an

3

Hecht brought claims for strict liability, civil conspiracy, fraudulent concealment,
negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty.
4
The statute-of-limitations instruction read as follows:
The Defendant has raised a statute of limitations defense in
this case. The statute of limitations is simply a provision of the
law requiring that suit be commenced in court on certain types of
claims within a prescribed period of time. Otherwise suit is barred
or precluded. In this case, Plaintiff’s suit would be barred if
Plaintiff knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have
known before May 5, 1990, both that he had COPD and that there
was a reasonable possibility that his COPD was caused by cigarette
smoking. On this timing issue, the Defendant has the burden of
proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Defendant does not need to prove that Plaintiff was
actually diagnosed with COPD before May 5, 1990 to prevail on
its statute of limitations defense. For purposes of this defense, the
critical event is not necessarily when the COPD was actually
diagnosed by a physician, but when the COPD first manifested
itself. Plaintiff knew or should have known that there was a
reasonable possibility that his COPD was caused by cigarette
smoking if the COPD manifested itself to him in a way that
supplied some evidence of a causal relationship to cigarette
smoking. In making that determination, you may consider what
Plaintiff knew prior to May 5, 1990, concerning the health risks of
cigarette smoking as they pertained to COPD.
3

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 4 of 22

“improper comment on the evidence” because it informed the jury that a medical
diagnosis was not required for the jury to find that Hecht knew or should have
known that he had COPD before the limitations deadline. Hecht also contends the
district court erred in advising the jury on the concept of constructive knowledge.
Finally, Hecht argues the evidence was insufficient to show that he knew or should
have that he had COPD and that there was a reasonable possibility that the disease
was caused by smoking cigarettes prior to May 5, 1990. Under the circumstances,
Hecht suggests the district court should not have provided the statute-of-limitations
instruction to the jury at all.

With regard to Plaintiff’s knowledge, you are instructed
that having the means to obtain knowledge is ordinarily equivalent
in law to knowledge. So, if it appears from a preponderance of the
evidence in the case that Plaintiff had information that would
normally have led a reasonably careful person of the same age,
mental capacity, intelligence, training and experience to make
inquiry through which such a person would surely learn certain
facts, then Plaintiff may be found to have actual knowledge of
those facts just as though he had made such inquiry and had
actually learned those facts.
You are to decide this issue by a preponderance of the
evidence. If a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Defendant’s position on this issue, your verdict should be for the
Defendant on Plaintiff’s claim based upon his COPD. However, if
a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Defendant’s
position on this issue, then your verdict on this issue should be for
Plaintiff.
4

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 5 of 22

After careful consideration, we conclude the district court did not err in
giving the particular statute-of-limitations instruction to the jury in this case.
Accordingly, we affirm.
I.
“Our review of jury instructions is simultaneously de novo and deferential.”
Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 765 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir.
2014) (citation omitted). We review jury instructions de novo in an effort to
determine whether they “misstate the law or mislead the jury to the prejudice of the
objecting party[,] but give the district court wide discretion as to the style and
wording employed.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We do
not disturb a district court’s decision with respect to giving a jury instruction unless
“we are left with a substantial and ineradicable doubt as to whether the district
court properly guided the jury.”

Id. (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted).
II.
With respect to his first argument, Hecht objects to the portion of the statuteof-limitations instruction that informed the jury that a diagnosis of COPD was not
necessary to find that Hecht knew or should have known that he suffered a medical
condition caused by smoking cigarettes. The district court instructed the jury that

5

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 6 of 22

RJR did not “need to prove that [Hecht] was actually diagnosed with COPD before
May 5, 1990 to prevail on its statute of limitations defense.”
The court further elaborated, “For purposes of this defense, the critical event
is not necessarily when the COPD was actually diagnosed by a physician, but
when the COPD first manifested itself.” In Hecht’s view, these aspects of the
instruction had the cumulative effect of unfairly favoring the defense. Hecht also
contends the jury instruction ran counter to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision
in Carter v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2000). We
disagree on both fronts.
Beginning with Carter, in that case, the Florida Supreme Court addressed
when the statute of limitations begins to run in a products-liability case involving a
latent or “creeping” disease, like COPD. 5 Carter, 778 So. 2d at 934. There, the
court held that the cause of action accrues when “the accumulated effects of the
deleterious substance manifest themselves to the claimant in a way which supplies
some evidence of a causal relationship to the manufactured product.” Id. (agreeing
with Copeland, 447 So. 2d at 926). But contrary to Hecht’s assertion, the facts of
Carter reveal that the diagnosis of a medical condition is not required to trigger the
accrual of a claim.

5

A “creeping” disease is “a disease acquired over a period of years as a result of longterm exposure to injurious substances.” Carter, 778 So.2d at 936-37 (citing Copeland v.
Armstrong Cork Co., 447 So. 2d 922, 926 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1984)).
6

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 7 of 22

In Carter, the court concluded that even though the plaintiff was not
diagnosed with lung cancer until February 14, 1991, a jury could reasonably
determine that the plaintiff knew or should have known on either January 29, 1991
(when he coughed and spit up blood), or February 4, 1991 (when his doctor told
him that he observed a spot on his lung and the spot could be related to cancer or
tuberculosis), that the effects of smoking cigarettes “manifested themselves to [the
plaintiff] in a way which supplied some evidence of a causal relationship to the
cigarettes.” Carter, 778 So. 2d at 938. In other words, the court made clear that a
medical diagnosis—which in Carter did not occur until February 14, 1991—is not
necessary to trigger the limitations period.
Florida’s First District Court of Appeal also concluded that a jury instruction
virtually identical to the one provided here was appropriate in R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. v. Jewett, 106 So. 3d 465 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2012). 6 There, after

6

The proposed jury instruction in Jewett read as follows:
Defendants do not need to prove that Ms. Jewett was actually
diagnosed with COPD prior to May 5, 1990, in order to prevail on
this defense. For purposes of this defense, the critical event is not
when her COPD was actually diagnosed by a physician, but when
her COPD first manifested itself.
Ms. Jewett knew or should have known that there was a reasonable
possibility that her COPD was caused by cigarette smoking if her
COPD manifested itself to her in a way that supplied some
evidence of a causal relationship to cigarette smoking. In making
that determination, you may properly consider what Ms. Jewett
knew prior to May 5, 1990, concerning the health risks of
cigarettes.
7

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 8 of 22

the trial court refused to give RJR’s proposed jury instruction, the appellate court
explained that the statute-of-limitations instruction should have been given because
it accurately conveyed the ruling in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246
(Fla. 2006). Jewett, 106 So. 2d at 469-70. The Jewett court acknowledged that the
“critical event is not when an illness was actually diagnosed by a physician, but
when the disease or condition first manifested itself.” Id. at 469 (quoting Engle,
945 So. 2d at 1276). It also found that the proposed instruction was supported by
the facts to be established at trial and was necessary for the jury to properly resolve
factual questions regarding the statute-of-limitations defense.

Id.

And

significantly, the court specifically noted that, given the principles expressed in
Engle and Carter, the jury “should not have been left unguided in making this legal
determination; the standard jury instruction did not adequately cover the legal
principles explained in the proposed instructions, leaving the jury to speculate
unnecessarily.” Id. at 470.
We see no material difference between Hecht’s case and Jewett, and we
conclude that the instruction given represented a correct statement of Florida law.
The jury instruction correctly advised that a diagnosis of COPD was not needed to
begin the limitations clock. See Carter, 778 So. 2d at 937 and Jewett, 106 So. 3d

Jewett, 106 So. 3d at 468.
8

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 9 of 22

at 469-70. See also Frazier v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc., 89 So. 3d 937, 946 (Fla.
3d Dist. Ct. App. 2012) (limitations period began to run, not when the smoker was
diagnosed with COPD, but when symptoms of disease began manifesting itself to
degree that the plaintiff knew or should have known of reasonable possibility that
symptoms were causally related to smoking.)
Here, in order to determine the date upon which Hecht’s claims accrued, the
jury had to decide whether Hecht “knew, or reasonably should have known,
enough to permit [him] to commence a non-frivolous tort lawsuit against [RJR] on
the basis of [his] physical, observable, patent symptoms and effects
(“manifestations”) before [May 5, 1990].” Id. The jury instruction given by the
district court allowed the jury to determine whether Hecht was on notice that
smoking cigarettes likely caused his illness. And it correctly noted that a diagnosis
of COPD was not necessary to begin the limitations period.
We also disagree with Hecht’s claim that the instruction was “an improper
comment on the evidence.” The jury instruction did not comment on the evidence
at all. Rather, as we have noted, the instruction assisted the jury in addressing the
issue at hand—whether the statute of limitations had run prior to the filing of
Hecht’s lawsuit. As the court in Jewett explained, “Because jury instructions are
contextual, some background is necessary” for the jury to determine the limitations
issue. Id. at 467; see also id. at 471 (noting the importance of providing a jury
9

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 10 of 22

with more, not less, “accurate information about the applicable law so it can
properly resolve factual questions.”). For these reasons, we find no error.
III.
Turning to Hecht’s second argument, Hecht contends the district court erred
when it advised the jury on the concept of constructive knowledge. He claims the
court erroneously informed the jury that having the “means to obtain knowledge is
ordinarily equivalent in law to knowledge.” The district court also instructed the
jury that if it appeared from a preponderance of the evidence that Hecht
had information that would normally have led a
reasonably careful person of the same age, mental
capacity, intelligence, training and experience to make
inquiry through which such a person would surely learn
certain facts, then [Hecht] may be found to have actual
knowledge of those facts just as though he had made such
inquiry and had actually learned those facts.
(emphasis added). Hecht contends that in using this additional language, the
district court erred in another way in explaining the legal concept of constructive
knowledge to the jury. Again, we disagree.
First, Hecht claims this portion of the jury instruction runs afoul of
Carter because the language suggests that the limitations period began to run when
Hecht knew or should have known that he had COPD. He contends that in Carter,
the Florida Supreme Court rejected the application of this principle—better known

10

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 11 of 22

as the Nardone Rule.7 But, in fact, Carter makes clear that the Nardone Rule was
not rejected; it was modified. Carter, 778 So. 2d at 939.8
As we have discussed, with respect to creeping diseases such as COPD, the
Florida Supreme Court concluded that “the cause of action accrues when the
accumulated effects of the deleterious substance manifest themselves to the
claimant in a way which supplies some evidence of a causal relationship to the
manufactured product.” Id. at 934 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). In this
way, Carter rejected a statute-of-limitations standard that looked to only when a
plaintiff knew or should have known about his injury. But it did not completely
jettison the manifestation standard. Instead, the holding in Carter requires that the
disease manifested itself in a way that would supply evidence of a causal
connection to the manufactured product.
The jury instruction provided by the district court was appropriate. It closely
tracked the language of Carter advising the jury that Hecht “knew or should have
known that there was a reasonable possibility that his COPD was caused by
cigarette smoking if the COPD manifested itself to him in a way that supplied
some evidence of a causal relationship to cigarette smoking.” (Emphasis added).
7

Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1976).
When commenting on the Nardone Rule, the court in Carter noted the knowledge
needed to trigger the statute of limitations “means not only knowledge of the injury but also
knowledge that there is a reasonable possibility that the injury was caused by medical
malpractice.” Carter, 778 So. 2d at 939 (quoting Tanner v. Hartog, 618 So. 2d 177, 181 (Fla.
1993)) (emphasis added).
8

11

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 12 of 22

The instruction appropriately incorporated the concept of causation with that of
Hecht’s knowledge. The jury instruction also comports with the statutory language
of Fla. Stat. § 95.031(2)(b), which states that products-liability actions accrue when
“the facts giving rise to the cause of action were discovered, or should have been
discovered with the exercise of due diligence[.]” See Fla. Stat. § 95.031(2)(b).
We similarly reject Hecht’s argument that the portion of the jury instruction
relating to constructive knowledge improperly shifted the burden of proof to him.
The instruction explicitly stated that RJR had the burden of proof on its statute-oflimitations defense. In fact, it twice specified that RJR bore the burden of proof by
a preponderance of the evidence. Consequently, we disagree with Hecht that the
instruction somehow shifted the burden to him to “connect facts, scientific
principles and medical conclusions[.]” The instruction made clear that RJR had
the burden of proof with respect to its statute-of-limitations defense.
Finally, Hecht claims the instruction, as it related to his knowledge of his
COPD, is not supported by any case law and encourages speculation by the jury.
To assist the jury in determining whether Hecht “knew, or by the exercise of
reasonable care should have known” before May 5, 1990, that he had COPD that
was caused by smoking cigarettes, the district court instructed the jury that “having
the means to obtain knowledge is ordinarily equivalent in law to knowledge.” It
also instructed that the jury could find the existence of actual knowledge if Hecht
12

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 13 of 22

“had information that would normally have led a reasonably careful person of the
same age, mental capacity, intelligence, training, and experience to make inquiry . .
. [to] learn certain facts.” This language was proper.
First, the instruction speaks of information that would have led a
“reasonably careful person” to make inquiry. Florida Courts routinely apply this
principle in the context of accrual of actions, so we find it appropriate here. See.
e.g., Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Allis Chalmers Corp., 85 F.3d 1514, 1519 (11th
Cir. 1996) (cause of action accrues “the moment the injured party or a reasonable
person in the injured party’s situation knew or should have known that the acts
complained of caused damage.”) (citation omitted).
Second and perhaps most significantly, we previously approved a virtually
identical instruction involving the same Florida statute of limitations at issue here.
See Powell v. Radkins, 506 F.2d 763, 764 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1975). 9 The particular
instruction in Powell advised the jury, with regard to the plaintiff’s knowledge, that
“the means of knowledge are ordinarily the equivalent in law to knowledge.” Id. at
764 n.2. And in Powell, we considered appropriate the following language:
So if it appears from a preponderance of the evidence in
the case that the Plaintiff had information which would
lead a reasonably careful person of the same age, mental
capacity, intelligence, training, and experience to make
inquiry through which he would surely learn certain
9

Pursuant to Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981), decisions of the
Fifth Circuit handed down before October 1, 1981, are binding on this Court.
13

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 14 of 22

facts, then that person may be found to have had actual
knowledge of those facts the same as if he had made such
inquiry and had actually learned such facts. That is to
say, the law will charge a person with notice and
knowledge of whatever he would have learned upon
making such inquiry as it would have been reasonable to
expect that person to make under the circumstances.
Id. Indeed, we expressly found the jury was properly instructed on “notice and
knowledge in terms of a reasonably careful person of the same age, mental
capacity, intelligence, training and experience.” Id. at 764.
Not only does the instruction given by the district court during Hecht’s trial
comport with the one our predecessor court approved in Powell, it is also in line
with the legal definition of “constructive knowledge.” Black’s Law Dictionary
defines constructive knowledge as “[k]nowledge that one using reasonable care or
diligence should have, and therefore that is attributed by law to a given person.”
Constructive Knowledge, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014). Here, the
instruction’s language regarding constructive knowledge tracks this concept by
referencing information that a “reasonably careful person” would have learned.
Third, contrary to Hecht’s contention, the jury instruction on constructive
knowledge does not lower the bar that RJR needed to clear in order to prevail on
its statute-of-limitations affirmative defense. The instruction makes clear that RJR
was required to do more than merely suggest that Hecht had knowledge of his
COPD prior to May 5, 1990. Rather, the instruction, when read as a whole,

14

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 15 of 22

adequately addresses the fact that evidence would need to show that Hecht “had
information that would normally have led a reasonably careful person . . . to make
inquiry . . . .” In this way, the constructive-knowledge instruction comports with
the holdings of Frazier and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Ciccone, 190 So. 3d
1028 (Fla. 2016).
In Frazier, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal found the issue in a
statute-of-limitations context to be whether the plaintiff “knew, or reasonably
should have known, enough to permit her to commence a non-frivolous tort lawsuit
against the [defendants] on the basis of those physical, observable, patent
symptoms and effects (“manifestations”) before [May 5, 1990].” Frazier, 89 So.
3d at 946. So too in Ciccone, the Florida Supreme Court noted that the applicable
statute of limitations runs “from the date that the facts giving rise to the cause of
action were discovered, or should have been discovered with the exercise of due
diligence.” Ciccone, 190 So. 3d at 1038 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Ciccone also speaks not of actual facts known by a plaintiff but the requirement
that a “reasonable plaintiff” know of the existence of a cause of action. Id.
For all of these reasons, the district court did not err when it advised the jury
with respect to constructive knowledge. The instruction accurately reflected the
law and we are not left with “a substantial and ineradicable doubt” as to whether
the district court properly guided the jury. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Silver
15

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 16 of 22

Star Health and Rehab., 739 F.3d 579, 585 (11th Cir. 2013). And even if the
district court had erred in giving the constructive-knowledge instruction—a
proposition with which we disagree—any such error was harmless because, as we
discuss in Section IV below, the evidence suggested that Hecht actually knew that
he had COPD before May 1990 and that the disease was caused by smoking
cigarettes.
IV.
Finally, Hecht contends that regardless of the particular language of the
instruction, RJR failed to provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to justify giving the
statute-of-limitations instruction to the jury in the first place. More specifically, he
claims RJR presented no direct evidence that Hecht knew or could have known he
had COPD before the critical date of May 5, 1990.

In Hecht’s view, RJR

presented only speculative factual evidence to support its statute-of-limitations
defense.
At the outset, RJR claims that Hecht waived this argument because he failed
to object to the jury instruction on the basis of sufficiency of evidence at trial.
Instead, Hecht’s objections to the statute-of-limitations instruction dealt only with
the substantive legal arguments regarding the particular language in the instruction.

16

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 17 of 22

We agree. Hecht never objected to the jury instruction on the basis that RJR
had failed to present evidence supporting it. Although Hecht moved for judgment
as a matter of law on the statute-of-limitations defense based on a lack of evidence,
the motion was not directed to giving the jury instruction. And even if the motion
for judgment as a matter of law could somehow be construed as an objection to the
jury instruction, Hecht made the motion only after the jury had reached a verdict.
Where a party was informed of a proposed instruction—as was the case here—
Rule 51(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., requires that party to object to the jury instruction
“before the instructions and arguments are delivered.” (Emphasis added).
But even if Hecht had not waived his argument, it would make no difference
to the outcome. Florida Courts have made clear that the determination of whether
a statute-of-limitations defense has been met in Engle progeny cases is an issue of
fact for the jury. Carter, 778 So. 2d at 937 (“the question of when the statute of
limitations begins to run in this type of case is generally treated as a fact question
for a jury to resolve. . . .”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). RJR
was entitled to have the district court advise the jury of its theory of defense as
long as it was supported by the evidence. See Japhe v. A-T-O, Inc., 481 F.2d 366,
371 (5th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Arias, 431 F.3d 1327, 1335 (11th Cir.
2005) (finding district court did not err by instructing jury on defense where the
evidence supported defense); United States v. Nur, 799 F.3d 155, 158 (1st Cir.
17

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 18 of 22

2015) (to determine whether the evidence supports the giving of a jury instruction,
we do not “weigh the evidence, but merely inquire into its sufficiency.”) (citation
omitted). Here, RJR presented sufficient evidence during trial that Hecht knew or
should have known before May 5, 1990, that he had COPD and that his smoking
caused his illness.
As an initial matter, the record supports a jury finding that Hecht
experienced significant shortness of breath years before May 1990.

And as

Hecht’s own expert witness testified, “exertional dyspnea, or shortness of breath on
exertion, can be a hallmark symptom of COPD[.]” In fact, Hecht’s expert agreed it
was “the most common symptom.”
Most tellingly, on cross-examination, Hecht acknowledged that he applied
for Social Security disability benefits on August 19, 1987, and was granted
benefits in July 1988. A verified fact worksheet filed during litigation—and signed
under penalty of perjury—reveals Hecht sought disability benefits because he was
“[u]nable to breathe.” 10 Although Hecht claimed that he applied for disability
benefits due to his post-polio condition and not for his breathing difficulties, the
jury was entitled to disbelieve him. This is so especially in light of the evidence
showing that Hecht applied for Social Security disability benefits related to his

10

While the worksheet identified Hecht’s application for disability benefits as
approximately 1995, during cross-examination, Hecht admitted that he filed for disability
benefits in the late 1980s—August 19, 19987, to be precise.
18

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 19 of 22

breathing difficulties years before May 1990. The jury was presented with a
classic credibility determination and having observed Hecht during trial (including
various times where his testimony was impeached), the jury was well within its
purview to disbelieve his testimony that he sought disability benefits for post-polio
syndrome and not his inability to breathe. See Crystal Entm’t & Filmworks, Inc. v.
Jurado, 643 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2011) (the credibility of a witness is in the
province of the factfinder).
Other evidence in the record supports the conclusion that Hecht received
disability benefits because of his breathing difficulties. Significantly, a hospital
record from September 1, 2005, noted that Hecht’s “Social history [was]
remarkable for being on disability due to his lung problems.” (emphasis added).
This statement, together with the other evidence already described, would have
allowed the jury to conclude that Hecht sought disability benefits in 1987 due to
his “lung problems” and inability to breathe.

And clearly, if Hecht’s lung

problems rose to the level where he sought disability payments, a jury could
naturally have concluded he knew or should have known he had COPD.
Aside from the application for disability benefits, other evidence supports a
finding that Hecht suffered from significant breathing difficulties prior to
May1990. In a letter dated June 12, 1997, Hecht’s pulmonologist, Dr. Kishwar
Husain wrote to Hecht’s general practitioner, Pam Juba, M.D., stating “As you are
19

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 20 of 22

well aware, Mr. Hecht has significant exertional dyspnea for the past ten years,
worse over the past year and a half with significant wheezing without cough or
hemoptysis.” (emphasis added). Dr. Husain wrote the letter to Dr. Juba in an
effort to set forth Dr. Husain’s “evaluation of [Hecht’s] COPD.” This evidence—
that Hecht suffered from significant exertional dyspnea for a decade—also
suggests that Hecht suffered shortness of breath severe enough to file a claim for
disability in 1987. The letter specifically noted “significant” shortness of breath
for the ten years before 1997 (1987—the precise year that Hecht applied for
disability benefits).
Other records also support a finding that Hecht suffered from significant
breathing problems prior to May 1990. For example, discharge records from
Hecht’s hospital stay in May to June 1993 noted that Hecht had a “[h]istory of
tobacco abuse with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.” This reference to a
“history” of COPD in 1993 tends to negate Hecht’s trial testimony that he
developed COPD in the mid to late 1990s. While this evidence alone might not
support a finding that Hecht knew or should have known he had COPD, it bolsters
the other evidence we have already discussed.
Finally, the evidence presented supports a finding that Hecht likely knew his
health problems were due to tobacco use.

First, during trial, Hecht’s expert

acknowledged that when Hecht was a teenager, the Surgeon General had issued a
20

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 21 of 22

report concluding that cigarette smoking caused COPD. Second, while Hecht
testified that he was unaware of a connection between smoking cigarettes and
COPD until his diagnosis, RJR impeached Hecht’s testimony. Responses provided
by Hecht during his deposition revealed, before Hecht developed his illness, his
mother had been diagnosed with COPD, and she told Hecht her COPD was caused
by smoking cigarettes. Hecht also acknowledged that over the years, he had seen
various warning labels on cigarette packages indicating the dangers of smoking.
Finally, Hecht’s expert admitted during trial, when a smoker presents to a doctor
with shortness of breath, the medical standard of care—since at least the early
1980s—requires doctors to (1) advise the patient that he is likely to have or to
develop COPD; and (2) counsel the patient to stop smoking.
In sum, ample evidence supported the district court’s instruction to the jury
on RJR’s statute-of-limitations defense. The record supports the jury’s conclusion
that Hecht knew or should have known before May 5, 1990, that he had COPD and
that a reasonable possibility existed that his condition was caused by smoking
cigarettes. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it instructed the jury
on the statute-of-limitations defense.
V.
For these reasons, the district court did not err in giving the statute-oflimitations instruction to the jury in this case.
21

We also conclude that the

Case: 16-10447

Date Filed: 09/25/2017

Page: 22 of 22

instruction appropriately advised the jury on the concept of constructive
knowledge, and it correctly noted that a diagnosis of COPD was not necessary to
begin the limitations period. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

22