Heckel, Brian v. 3M Company et al

Filing 324

ORDER granting 143 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 187 Motion in Limine; granting 258 Motion in Limine; granting 219 Motion to Strike; granting in part and denying in part 291 Motion to Strike; denying 304 Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted and Authenticated; denying as moot 301 Motion to Take Deposition of David B. Allen; denying as moot 222 Motion for Protective Order; denying as moot 249 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Weyerhaeuser Company. Plaintiff may have until 2/29/2016 to advise the court as to the status of his claims against the other named defendants. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 2/19/2016. (arw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER,
Plaintiffs,

OPINION AND ORDER

v.
14-cv-286-wmc
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BRIAN HECKEL, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Sharon Heckel,

Plaintiff,
v.
CBS CORP., GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,

13-cv-459-wmc

Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DIANNE JACOBS, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Rita Treutel,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION, and
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,

12-cv-899-wmc

Defendants,
RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION,
Cross-claimant,
v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
Cross-defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KATRINA MASEPHOL, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Richard Masephol,
Plaintiff,
v.
14-cv-186-wmc
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JANET PECHER, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Urban Pecher,
Plaintiff,
v.
14-cv-147-wmc
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust,
Plaintiff,
v.
14-cv-143-wmc
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JANICE SEEHAFER, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Roger Seehafer,
Plaintiff,
v.
14-cv-161-wmc
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

THERESA SYDOW, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Wesley Sydow,
Plaintiff,
v.
14-cv-219-wmc
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants
The above-listed eight cases all involve nuisance claims brought by or on behalf of
the estates of now deceased, former workers of defendant Weyerhaeuser Company and
their spouses for asbestos-related injuries based on alleged, non-occupational exposure. In
each case, defendant Weyerhaeuser has moved to strike plaintiffs’ experts and for
summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs are unable to prove injuries beyond those
resulting from asbestos exposure on the job, for which they, their estates and spouses
may only recover under worker’s compensation laws. While the motions for summary
judgment raise other bases for dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims, most of the issues raised in
the summary judgment motions overlap with those raised in defendant’s Daubert motion,
which challenges the admissibility of expert testimony that non-occupational exposures
constituted a substantial contributing factor in the plaintiffs’ respective development of
asbestos-related diseases.1
For the reasons that follow, the court will grant defendant’s Daubert and summary
judgment motions with respect to plaintiffs Masephol, Prust, Seehafer, Heckel and
Treutel, based on their failure to offer reliable evidence of significant, non-occupational

Six of the eight workers were diagnosed with mesothelioma, while the other two were diagnosed
with lung cancer.
1

3

exposure to asbestos. The court will, however, deny the same motions with respect to
plaintiffs Boyer, Pecher and Sydow, finding that the latter three plaintiffs have produced
sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find: (1) they not only worked, but lived for
at least one year within a 1.25 mile radius of the plant that scientific studies suggest may
meaningfully increase their risk of development mesothelioma; and (2) a qualified expert
can testify reliably that this exposure constituted a significant, non-occupational asbestos
exposure, which in turn substantially contributed to their respective mesothelioma
diagnoses.

The court will also grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s private nuisance claims, finding: (1) plaintiffs failed to put forth any evidence
of a possessory interest; and (2) the discovery rule under Wis. Stat. § 893.52 does not
apply. In all other respects, defendant’s motions will be denied.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES
Before turning to defendant’s motions for summary judgment and exclusion of
experts, the court will first address a number of evidentiary and discovery-related
challenges.
A. D.B. Allen’s Document and Deposition
In responding to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs rely
extensively on a 32-page document titled “Marshfield: An Environmental History,”
purportedly authored by D. B. Allen, dated August 1975. (Herrick Decl., Ex. 1 (dkt.
#360-1).) Plaintiffs represent that this document was produced by Weyerhaeuser in
2003, as part of a separate asbestos lawsuit in which Weyerhaeuser was also a named
4

defendant. The document consists of a chronology of entries concerning dust handling,
complaints about emissions from community members, and various measurements of
emissions, among other related topics and spans the time period from 1959 to July 10,
1975.
Defendant Weyerhaeuser seeks to strike this document from the record, asserting
that it was not authenticated and does not fall under any of the exceptions to the rule of
hearsay. (Def.’s Mot. to Strike Pls.’ Evidence as Inadmissible Hearsay (‘286 dkt. #399)
2.) Weyerhaeuser further contends that the document contains multiple layers of hearsay,
since it “appears to include statements from other documents about statements
purportedly made by members of the Marshfield community.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs not only oppose defendant’s motion, but filed their own motions
concerning Allen and this document. First, plaintiffs contend that the document was
properly authenticated by defendant in failing to respond to plaintiffs’ request to admit.
(Pls.’ Resp. (‘286 dkt. #419); Pls.’ Mot. to Deem Responses Admitted (‘286 dkt. #420).)
Specifically, plaintiffs contend that Weyerhaeuser failed to respond timely to plaintiffs’
requests for admission that certain documents produced by Weyerhaeuser, including the
D. B. Allen chronology, “was a true and correct copy of the original so as to dispense with
any foundational authentication requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” (Pls.’
Resp. (‘286 dkt. #419) 2 (quoting Pls.’ Requests for Admission (‘286 dkt. #420-3) 3,
39).)
In fairness, plaintiffs concede that defendant Weyerhaeuser did respond to
plaintiffs’ requests for admission, denying the authenticity of certain documents,
5

including the D. B. Allen document. (Def.’s Resp. to Pls.’ Requests for Admission (‘286
dkt. #420-4) 6.) Plaintiffs nevertheless contend that the response was untimely by one
day.

Plaintiffs’ motion depends at the outset on plaintiffs’ serving the requests for

admission on July 29, 2015, while at least one of the certificates of service lists July 30,
2015, as the actual service date.

While plaintiffs offer compelling evidence that the

requests for admission were actually served on the 29th, defendant could reasonably have
relied on the latter date in serving its responses in light of the acknowledged discrepancy
on the certificate of service. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiffs’ motion to deem
requests for admission admitted.
In the alternative, plaintiffs contend that the document may be properly
authenticated as an ancient document. Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(8) provides:
(8) Evidence About Ancient Documents or Data
Compilations.
For a document or data compilation,
evidence that it:
(A) is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its
authenticity;
(B) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and
(C) is at least 20 years old when offered.
While the court is sympathetic to plaintiffs’ predicament, there is no way for plaintiffs to
demonstrate that the document “was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be,”
having received the document from a prior lawsuit some 12 years ago, without any
information as to where the document was stored before Weyerhaeuser’s purported
production of it. As such, plaintiffs cannot authenticate the document for purposes of

6

summary judgment -- even putting aside the hearsay issue. Still, plaintiffs may be able to
introduce the document at trial.
In yet another related motion, plaintiffs seek an order permitting them to depose
David B. Allen, a retired employee of Weyerhaeuser, whose last known position was
assistant director of the Environmental Resources Group. (Pls.’ Mot. to Take Deposition
of David B. Allen (‘286 dkt. #417).) Plaintiffs explain that they learned the identify of
D. B. Allen more than two years before the close of discovery, but did not learn of his
whereabouts until September 10, 2015, after the close of discovery, despite their earlier
efforts to do so.

Plaintiffs contend that the delay in their receipt of his location

constitutes good cause under Rule 16 to permit plaintiffs to depose Allen after the close
of discovery.
In response, defendant points to its July 2015 answer to plaintiffs’ interrogatory
requesting contact information for certain former employees, including Allen, which
stated that it would not provide information absent an authorization from the individual.
Of course, defendant’s response presents a classic chicken and egg conundrum:

how

could plaintiffs obtain Allen’s authorization to disclose his contact information without
the requested contact information? While plaintiffs perhaps could have, indeed should
have, been more diligent in pressing for Allen’s contact information, the court finds
defendant’s response constitutes good cause for extending the deadline for plaintiffs to
depose Allen, though the deposition will be limited to questions concerning the 1975 D.
B. Allen document.2

2

Given that Allen likely falls outside of this court’s subpoena power, plaintiffs may wish to

7

Finally, as for Weyerhaeuser’s contention that the document should be excluded
as hearsay, the court will reserve on that ruling pending Allen’s deposition and any
testimony on his part, which may after all demonstrate that the document falls within an
exception to the hearsay rule, e.g., as an opposing party’s statement, Fed. R. Evid.
801(d)(2), or as a business record, Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).3
B. Plaintiffs’ Reliance on Depositions From Other Cases
In addition to seeking to strike the Allen document, Weyerhaeuser objects to
plaintiffs’ reliance on depositions from other cases, including at least one where
Weyerhaeuser was not a defendant or otherwise involved in the case or deposition.
(Def.’s Mot. to Strike Inadmissible Hearsay (‘286 dkt. #399).)

Specifically,

Weyerhaeuser objects to plaintiffs’ reliance on the depositions of Elwood Schiller, Larry
Rogers, Verna Fohrman, and Jerry Saindon, all but one of whom have since passed away
and, therefore, are no longer available for live testimony or another deposition.
Weyerhaeuser also represents that it was not present at the depositions of Schiller and
Rogers, and that it was not a party in the action for which Schiller was deposed.
As an initial matter, while Weyerhaeuser lumps Saindon into its motion to strike,
neither of the reasons offered for doing so -- that Weyerhaeuser was not present at the
deposition or that the deponent is no longer available -- apply to Jerry Saindon. (Pls.’

videotape the deposition, so that portions might be played during trial, if necessary.
Despite not considering the D.B. Allen document at summary judgment, plaintiffs still put forth
sufficient evidence of asbestos emissions into the community to survive summary judgment.
Furthermore, it does not appear that plaintiffs’ experts Frank Parker and Henry Anderson relied
on the D.B. Allen document in forming their respective opinions.
3

8

Resp. (‘286 dkt. #419) 7-8.) Absent some reason for striking his deposition testimony,
Weyerhaeuser’s motion is denied with respect to Saindon.4
As for the other three individuals, there is no dispute that all three deponents are
deceased and, therefore, unavailable under Rule 804. The rule provides in pertinent part
that:
(b) The Exceptions. The following are not excluded by the
rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a
witness:
(1) Former Testimony. Testimony that:
(A) was given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful
deposition, whether given during the current proceeding or a
different one; and
(B) is now offered against a party who had--or in a civil case,
whose predecessor in interest had--an opportunity and similar
motive to develop it by direct, cross-, or redirect examination.
Fed. R. Evid. 804(b).
Since Weyerhaeuser was represented by counsel at the deposition of Verna
Fohrman, with similar motive to develop the record, Rule 804(b) plainly applies to the
admissibility of her deposition testimony in this action.5 Further, Weyerhaeuser was a
defendant in the Rogers action and provided notice of Larry Rogers deposition, but chose

Given this ruling, the court need not reach plaintiffs’ apparent suggestion that portions of
Saindon’s 2003 deposition may be offered as a prior inconsistent statement from his 2014
deposition testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A).
4

In addition, Weyerhaeuser also contends that Fohrman’s deposition should be stricken because
portions of her testimony contain hearsay or are not based on personal knowledge. While the
court will consider specific objections to those portions of her testimony in reviewing plaintiffs’
proposed findings of facts, the court obviously would not strike the entire deposition based on the
possibility that certain excerpts may be inadmissible.
5

9

not to appear. As such, Weyerhaeuser had the “opportunity” and apparently the same
motive to cross-examine him in 2001 while still available, but chose to pass on that
opportunity. The court, therefore, concludes that Rogers’ deposition testimony is also
admissible here.
The admissibility of Schiller’s testimony presents a closer question. Weyerhaeuser
was neither a defendant in that action, nor present at his deposition. Nor is there any
suggestion that it was provided an opportunity to examine him, but chose not to do so.
Plaintiffs direct the court to a District of Massachusetts opinion in which the court
allowed deposition testimony of a deceased co-worker in an asbestos action even though
the defendant was not a participant in the prior action and was not present at the coworker’s deposition, reasoning that “the use of asbestos products on the site was
thoroughly examined” by the nineteen lawyers who deposed that one witness. Barraford
v. T&N Ltd., 988 F. Supp. 2d 81, 85 (D. Mass. 2013).
While the Barraford court’s logic and sense of fairness is sound, the holding itself
ignores the express requirement in Rule 804 that the party against whom the deposition
is being offered is the same party, or a predecessor in interest to the party in a civil
context, that was involved in the earlier deposition. See generally 5 Mark S. Brodin et al.,
Weinstein’s Fed. Evidence § 804.04[4][a] (2d ed. 2015). Moreover, this is a requirement
that the Seventh Circuit at least has applied in a straightforward fashion. See United
States v. Sklena, 692 F.3d 725, 730-31 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[I]n order for Rule 804(b)(1)’s
exception to apply, the hearsay testimony at issue must meet the criteria spelled out in
the rule. That is, the party against whom the evidence is being offered must have been
10

involved in the earlier ‘trial, hearing, or lawful deposition,’ and that party must have had
an opportunity as well as a similar motive to develop the testimony at the prior
proceeding.”). Accordingly, the court will exclude Schiller’s deposition as inadmissible
hearsay.
C. Weyerhaeuser’s
Deposition

Motion

for

Protective

Order

concerning

Ehlke

Finally, the court must address Weyerhaeuser’s motion for a protective order up
front, which seeks to prohibit plaintiffs’ deposition of Douglas B. Ehlke, Weyerhaeuser’s
former in-house counsel, on the basis that “any information Plaintiffs seek from Mr.
Ehlke is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product
doctrine.” (Def.’s Mot. (‘286 dkt. #309); Def.’s Br. (‘286 dkt. #310) 2.) As plaintiffs
point out in their response, Weyerhaeuser relies in its motion on an Eighth Circuit case
focused on protecting trial counsel from discovery, not in-house counsel at issue here.
(Pls.’ Resp. (‘286 dkt. #386) 3-4.) Instead, plaintiffs represent that they will not ask
Ehlke about any legal advice he rendered to the company, but rather the deposition will
focus on his “knowledge of the documents and personnel involved with the asbestos
matters during his tenure.” (Id. at 2.)
Weyerhaeuser has failed to raise any basis -- and the court can find none -- for
prohibiting plaintiffs from taking Ehlke’s deposition. Perhaps the deposition will touch
on information for which privilege is properly invoked, perhaps not, but plaintiffs suggest
other topics which appear to fall outside the scope of any privilege, at least as it concerns
his personal knowledge or knowledge obtained in a setting outside the scope of rending

11

legal advice or where that privilege was waived (e.g., shareholder or other public meetings,
court, SEC or other governmental submissions, or other discussions at which third-parties
were present).

The court will, therefore, deny Weyerhaeuser’s motion for protective

order, and allow plaintiffs to depose him on non-privileged matters.6
D. Challenge to Anderson’s Apportionment Opinion
Finally, defendant brings a motion to strike Anderson’s “causation ‘calculation’ or
‘risk assessment’ theory and opinion” disclosed for the first time during the second day of
his deposition. (Def.’s Mot. to Strike Testimony of Dr. Henry A. Anderson (‘286 dkt.
#302).)

The only written evidence of this opinion is Anderson’s handwritten

calculations on each plaintiff’s exposure summary, which was not even provided to
defendant’s counsel until the conclusion of the second day of the deposition.

More

importantly, Anderson did not disclose this theory in his final expert reports, as required
by the court’s preliminary pretrial conference orders. Moreover, as far as the court can
discern, plaintiffs never sought to supplement Anderson’s report with this new opinion.
Perhaps recognizing their tenuous position, plaintiffs’ response to this motion is
limited to a footnote in their brief in opposition to defendant’s Daubert motion. In that
footnote, plaintiffs argue that the opinions are not new, but rather “Dr. Anderson merely
clarified and made more specific his earlier answers when probed.” (Pls.’ Opp’n (‘286
dkt. #359) 60 n.48.)

Not true.

Anderson testified at his deposition that he was

Because the court is denying defendant’s motion, it need not consider plaintiffs’ motion for
leave to file a sur-reply, nor did it consider the proposed sur-reply. (See, e.g., Pls.’ Mot. (‘286 dkt.
#358).)
6

12

“subsequently asked” by plaintiffs’ law firm to “see if I could [apportion cause] using my
epidemiological approach.” (6/2/15 Anderson Depo. (‘286 dkt. #239) 337.)
As noted, plaintiffs were required to disclose this additional opinion timely.
While it is not clear why plaintiffs could not have requested this analysis as part of
Anderson’s original report, the court would have entertained a motion to supplement this
opinion had plaintiffs sought leave, but they failed to do. As such, the court agrees with
defendant that plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the disclosure of a new opinion
during Anderson’s deposition was either substantially justified or harmless under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). Accordingly, the court will not allow plaintiffs to offer
this new theory or opinion at trial and will strike the portion of Anderson’s deposition
testimony articulating this new opinion.

UNDISPUTED FACTS7
A. Overview of Weyerhaeuser Plant and Use of Asbestos
Plaintiff Weyerhaeuser acquired a door plant located in Marshfield, Wisconsin,
from Roddis in August 1960 and sold the facility in 2000.

The Marshfield plant

manufactured wood products with multiple operations and divisions on site, including a
dry kiln, particleboard plant, molded products plant, warehouse, a door factor building
(referred to as the door mill), and a mineral core plant. Weyerhaeuser manufactured a
door core containing asbestos in the mineral core plant, which opened in 1968, although

7

The court finds the following facts material and undisputed unless otherwise noted.

13

Weyerhaeuser had used asbestos to manufacture doors before 1968.8

Weyerhaeuser

stopped using asbestos in June 1978.
B. Facts Specific to Each Worker’s Diagnosis and Overall Exposure to
Asbestos
i.

Milton Boyer

Milton Boyer was diagnosed with mesothelioma on March 13, 2014, and passed
away on August 31, 2015. He was employed by Weyerhaeuser at the Marshfield plant
from 1973 to 1983. During that time, his job duties involved work in the core mill area
of the door plant, including spending time sweeping the mineral core area, dumping the
sweeper and operating a power jimmy operator in the core mill. Boyer also assisted in
cleaning the mineral core forming pans on one occasion, helping to pound the dust out of
the pans. Boyer testified that his “biggest dose” of asbestos came from sweeping the
mineral core department. (Def.’s PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #223) ¶ 35 (quoting Boyer 6/16/14
Depo. (‘286 dkt. #71) 56).)
Boyer lived outside Marshfield his entire life, except for approximately four years
between 1975 to 1979 when he lived at 302 West Blodgett Street and 605 East Vine
Street in Marshfield. (From Google Maps, it appears that the West Blodgett apartment
is located about 1.07 miles from the plant and the East Vine residence is approximately
0.6 mile from the plant.)

Boyer testified at his deposition that he noticed his car

frequently had dust on it during this period. He described the dust as similar to what
was in the mineral core, although he also stated that it was “probably . . . all concrete
Roddis may have also used asbestos, namely Kaylo, in manufacturing fire doors beginning in
1959, although Weyerhaeuser challenges plaintiffs’ evidence on this point.
8

14

dust” from the concrete plant in Marshfield. (Def.’s Reply to Def.’s PFOFs (‘286 dkt.
#383) ¶ 37 (quoting Boyer 6/18/14 Depo. (‘286 dkt. #72) 76).)
Both of Boyer’s parents worked in the Weyerhaeuser plant as well, and he lived
with his parents until 1972. While there is conflicting evidence in the record, Boyer
contends that his father drove a garbage truck for the plant. Boyer also believed that his
father worked in the mineral core area, but did not have personal knowledge of this. For
purposes of summary judgment, the court assumes that Boyer’s father drove the garbage
or dump truck, which involved contact with the mineral core part of the plant. Boyer’s
mother, however, worked solely in door inspection in the veneer department and did not
work in the mineral core department.
Boyer reports that his father’s clothing was always dusty or dirty after work, and
Boyer remembers hugging his father after he returned from work. Boyer also testified
that his father’s car was a “dusty mess” and that he never cleaned it. (Boyer 6/16/14
Depo. (‘286 dkt. #71) 20; Boyer 6/18/14 Depo. (‘286 dkt. #72) 14-15.) In addition,
Boyer helped his mother with the laundry beginning at age six or seven and until he was
12 or 13, which involved shaking dust and debris off of his father’s work clothes.
Finally, in 1966 and 1967, Boyer attended Marshfield Junior High School, which
was located less than a mile from the plant. During that time, he played football after
school on a field located directly across the street from Weyerhaeuser.
ii.

Richard Masephol

Richard Masephol was diagnosed with mesothelioma on January 9, 2014.
passed away on May 3, 2015.

He

Masephol was employed by Weyerhaeuser at the
15

Marshfield facility from 1973 to 2014. From approximately 1974 to 1979, Masephol
worked in the core mill operating saws for tonguing and grooving the mineral cores. His
work required him to touch and move mineral cores. During that time, Masephol was
personally monitored for asbestos exposure.
Masephol lived in Chili or Spencer, Wisconsin his entire life and attended grade
school and high school in Granton, Wisconsin. Chili is approximately 10 miles from
Marshfield, and Granton is approximately 20-25 minutes from Marshfield.

Plaintiff

represents that he attended a tech school in Marshfield for welding in 1974, but the
record fails to disclose the location of that school. Before 1979, Masephol also testified
that other than for work, he was within a mile of the plant approximately one or two
times per week (for example, to go to the hardware store or the labor temple).9
Masephol also claims he was exposed to asbestos by his father, who worked at the
plant between 1948 and 1982.

Masephol lived with his parents until 1984. Masephol

acknowledged that he never knew about his father working in or being assigned to the
area around the mineral core plant, but he also testified that his father worked in door
inspection and drove a jimmy in the general factory. For at least one summer, he also
worked for buildings and grounds on the roof.

In those jobs -- particularly, in

maintenance -- Masephol’s father may have been exposed to asbestos.
Masephol testified at his deposition that as he was growing up, his father would
throw his work clothes on the floor after returning from work and that he only changed
For the reasons explained below, the specific location of the tech school and the frequency of
Masephol’s visits to Marshfield are ultimately immaterial to his claim. (See, discussion, infra
Opinion § I.C.iii.)
9

16

his work clothes once or twice a week. Masephol was also in close proximity to his
mother when she would do the laundry, including his father’s work clothes.

Finally,

Masephol testified that he rode with his father to work for a couple of months and that
his car was always dusty.
iii.

Urban Pecher

On November 27, 2013, Urban Pecher was diagnosed post-mortem with
peritoneal mesothelioma.

Pecher was employed by Weyerhaeuser at the Marshfield

facility from 1953 to 2000. Pecher’s duties included working in the detail department
and hauling waste materials to the landfill. In his role in the detail department, Pecher
worked on fire-rated doors, including doors with mineral core, and cut into the fire door
cores for windows and other openings.

Like Masephol, Pecher also was part of the

asbestos surveillance program.
In 1961, Pecher and his wife moved to the 200 block of South Maple Street in
Marshfield, located approximately 0.6 mile from the plant, and lived there for
approximately five months. In 1969, Pecher moved to 402 North Peach Avenue, which
is located approximately 0.51 mile from the plant, and lived at that residence for at least
ten more years. While living at both of these residences, Pecher would walk or ride his
bike to work.
In addition, Urban Pecher’s wife, Janet, testified that the laundry hung outside,
the windshield of their vehicle and their window sills were at times covered with off-white
dust that she believed was from the Marshfield plant, in part because it was the same
color as the dust that came home on her husband’s clothing after work, though she
17

admitted that she did not know the make-up or content of the dust she saw around her
home.
iv.

Valmore Prust

Valmore Prust was diagnosed with an asbestos-related lung disease in February
2009 and ultimately was diagnosed with lung cancer on January 7, 2010. Prust passed
away on May 17, 2011. He was employed by Weyerhaeuser at the Marshfield plant
from 1958 to 1979, and was exposed to asbestos through his employment. Prust also
smoked one pack of cigarettes per day for more than 45 years, quitting in 2000.
From approximately 1955 until 1960, Prust lived at 811 East Fifth Street, located
approximately 0.18 mile from the Weyerhaeuser plant. In 1963, the Prusts moved to
1518 South Locust Avenue, which plaintiffs represent is approximately 1.2 miles from
the Weyerhaeuser plant, although Google Maps suggests it would be more like 1.4 miles.
Prust also claims exposure through his wife’s work at Weyerhaeuser, though plaintiff
acknowledges that Virginia Prust worked exclusively in the veneer department, where
asbestos was not used. Still, plaintiffs contend that elevators were used to move dusty
loads of veneer and other materials between the veneer department and other floors,
including the mineral core area.
Prust also was a member of Immanuel Lutheran Church, located less than one
mile from the Weyerhaeuser plant. Prust also claims exposure from his frequent visits to
Miller’s QuickLunch, located approximately 0.13 miles from the Weyerhaeuser plant at
208 S. Palmetto, and Pete’s Bar located at 400 N. Central Ave., approximately 0.82 miles
from the plant.
18

v.

Roger Seehafer

Roger Seehafer was diagnosed with mesothelioma on November 8, 2013, and died
February 23, 2015. Seehafer was employed by Weyerhaeuser at the Marshfield plant
from 1955 to 1999. During his employment, Seehafer worked in door inspection, which
typically involved his inspecting 100 to 200 doors each day.

Some of those doors

contained mineral core. At some point, Seehafer also worked in the detail department,
which involved cutting and drilling holes into doors with a mineral core, as well as in the
“mortising” department, which also involved cutting into door cores.
Seehafer lived outside of Marshfield in the towns of Spencer and McMillian until
1998, except for a few months in 1966 when he lived at his brother’s house at an
unknown address in Marshfield. Seehafer also claims exposure to asbestos from 1955 to
1967 while delivering milk to a creamery across the street from the Marshfield facility.
Finally, Seehafer claims exposure in 1965, from stopping by his ex-wife’s house, located
on Arnold Street (less than a mile from the plant), for ten to fifteen minutes at a time to
pick up his children about once a week.
vi.

Wesley Sydow10

Wesley Sydow was diagnosed with mesothelioma on February 24, 2014, and
passed away on March 29, 2015. He was employed by Weyerhaeuser at the Marshfield
The court previously granted plaintiff Sydow’s motion to file an amended complaint, naming
his wife Theresa Sydow as the plaintiff individually and as the special administrator of Wesley
Sydow’s estate. Sadly, as explained in plaintiff’s second motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint, Theresa Sydow has now passed away too. (Pl.’s 2d Mot. to File 3d Am. Compl. (‘419
dkt. #440).) In that motion, plaintiff sought leave to file an amended complaint once the new
special administrator was named, asking for an extension until January 25, 2016. (Id. at 2.) The
court will grant plaintiff’s motion, and require plaintiff to file a third amended complaint naming
the new special administrator as plaintiff on or before March 3, 2016.
10

19

plant from 1947 to 1990, holding several assignments including chief inspector, quality
control manager, general fabrication supervisor, fabrication superintendent, and claims
manager. Sydow testified that he was in the mineral core area at least on a daily basis.
From age eight to the present, Sydow has lived at various locations around
Marshfield, including from 1957 to 1967, a house located at 800 South Palmetto
Avenue, approximately 0.5 mile from the plant, and from 1967 to at least the time of his
deposition, at 1800 South Cedar Street, approximately 1.1 mile from the plant. Despite
their proximity to the plant, none of Sydow’s houses were tested for asbestos. When
living at the South Cedar Street house, Sydow would walk to and from the Weyerhaeuser
plant for work, and he would occasionally come home for lunch as well.
At his deposition, Sydow testified that from his house on South Palmetto, he
would see a billow of dust every once in a while. This came from what he thought was
the core mill baghouse, but he was not certain of its source because he could not see the
baghouse from his home. Sydow also testified at his deposition that he did not believe
he was exposed to asbestos from living in the town of Marshfield. (Def.’s PFOFs (‘286
dkt. #223) ¶ 100 (quoting Sydow Depo. (‘219 dkt. #168) 112-13).)
Sydow’s son worked in the core mill while he was still living at home, though
defendant points out that his son worked the third shift, so he was at work while Sydow
was home asleep and Sydow had already gone to work by the time Robert came home
from work.

20

vii.

Sharon Heckel

Sharon Heckel was diagnosed with lung cancer on January 23, 2012. She passed
away on August 17, 2012. Heckel smoked one pack of cigarettes per day from the age of
20 to the age of 54. She was also employed at the Weyerhaeuser plant from 1970 to
2009, and worked in the mineral core area for approximately 4 years before 1978. In her
work in the mineral core area, Heckel was exposed to dust from cutting and sanding
asbestos door cores and these exposures occurred on a daily basis.
Heckel lived at various locations in Marshfield from approximately 1966 to 1978.
From 1966 to sometime in 1968 or 1969, the Heckels lived at a house on Doege Street,
roughly six blocks and likely less than a mile from the Weyerhaeuser plant, although
plaintiff does not provide an exact address or distance. Around 1970, the Heckel family
lived briefly at a house on Hinman Avenue, approximately five blocks north of the plant.
(The court will assume for purposes of summary judgment that this house was also
within 1.25 miles of the plant.) From approximately 1970 to 1978, Heckel lived on 29th
Street, approximately one mile from the plant and approximately 0.25 mile from the
landfill near the airport.
While Heckel claimed non-occupational exposure due to Weyerhaeuser trucks
driving by her homes on the way to the landfill, there appears to be no dispute that the
Weyerhaeuser trucks either did not drive by her home or were not using a specific landfill
during the time she lived close to that landfill. Heckel’s husband worked in the boiler
room at Weyerhaeuser in the mid-1960s, although plaintiff offers no evidence of his

21

exposure to asbestos, and in turn, to any household exposure on the part of Mrs. Heckel
because of her husband’s employment.
viii.

Rita Treutel

Rita Treutel was diagnosed with mesothelioma on March 30, 2012. Treutel was
employed by Weyerhaeuser at the Marshfield facility from 1966 to 1984, where she
worked as a panel line offbearer from 1966 to 1968 and as a mill clerk from 1969 to
1984. During her employment, Treutel spent time on the manufacturing floor of the
detail department where fire door cores were cut.
Treutel did not live in Marshfield until 2000, when the Treutels sold their home
since 1966 and moved into an apartment in Marshfield.11 Still, her daughter testified
that Treutel would “sometimes” visit Marshfield either to go grocery shopping, clothes
shopping, or visit the zoo or park.
Treutel’s husband worked at the plant from 1946 to 1983, but worked in the
veneer department for all times material to Treutel’s claims. Asbestos was not used in
the veneer department. Treutel’s daughter spent two summers working at the facility in
1966 and 1967.

During her second summer, she started work on the electronics

machine, which involved handling pieces of mineral core, including shoveling Kaylo dust
at the end of the shift. Treutel’s son also worked at the plant during the summer of 1968
as a hot press helper, but denied knowing whether he worked on fire doors in that job.

Treutel’s son testified at his deposition that the family car was always dusty, but he did not
know where the dust came from. Treutel’s daughter, however, testified that she never thought
about or noticed that Marshfield was a dirty or dusty place.
11

22

Finally, Treutel did all of the laundry for her family during this period and her children
reported that their clothes were dusty and dirty from working at the plant.
C. Evidence of Asbestos Emissions in Households and in the Community
i.

Evidence of Asbestos Emissions from the Plant

The door cores contained 5.6% of Chrysotile asbestos and 11.2% of Amosite
asbestos.

Relying on a proposal for a production facility, plaintiffs maintain that to

produce 70,000 fire doors per year, Weyerhaeuser used 117 tons per year of Chrysotile
and 235 tons per year of Amosite. (Pl.’s PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #362) ¶ 9.)
Plaintiffs cite to deposition testimony of former Weyerhaeuser employees,
including those suing here, about baghouses regularly becoming plugged with excess
mineral core dust, resulting in dust shooting up like a geyser out of the plant into the
environment. Employee Charles Reno also testified that his work in the maintenance
department required him to resolve issues with the baghouses on at least a weekly basis.
In particular, when baghouses became clogged or malfunctioned, Reno testified that he
would “take an air hose in there and -- with a long wand and blow them out” at the
direction of Weyerhaeuser management. (Pls.’ PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #362) ¶ 13 (quoting
Reno Depo. (‘286 dkt. #227) 18-19); see also Pls.’ PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #362) ¶ 18.)
Defendant points out that there were multiple baghouses on site, including ones
that were not specific to asbestos, but in addition, plaintiffs point to Weyerhaeuser
employees’ testimony that during the weekend, windows in the mineral core area would
be opened with fans pointing to blow (presumably fouled) air out of the windows into
the community.
23

Plaintiffs also submit evidence of internal and community complaints about
emissions from the plan.

In a letter to Jerry Saindon dated January 20, 1977, an

employee only identified by “Mark” describes “a serious problem as it relates to
expos[ure] to mineral core dust outside the areas designated for monitoring and control,
and specifically expressed concern about the baghouse system suffering from frequent
leaks and plug-ups. (Pls.’ PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #362) ¶ 16 (quoting Herrick Decl., Ex. 12
(‘286 dkt. #355-28)).)

Weyerhaeuser employee Verna Fohrman testified that cars

parked in the employee parking lot would be covered in dust. Fohrman also testified that
at times a bridge on the plant property looked like it had been hit by a “snowstorm, for
all the Kaylo dust.” (Pls.’ PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #362) ¶ 38 (quoting Fohrman Depo. (‘286
dkt. #337) 12).)
In addition to asbestos emissions from the plant itself, Weyerhaeuser employees
hauled asbestos dust and scrap waste to landfills. Approximately three loads of mineral
core waste, filling a 5-ton truck were taken to one of the landfills each day.

One

document reports that in October 1974, Weyerhaeuser disposed of 193 truckloads of
solid waste each week, but does not specify whether the waste was asbestos or solely from
the mineral core area. For some portion of the relevant period, these waste trucks were
not even covered, and one driver reported seeing dust behind the trucks if the wind was
blowing. Weyerhaeuser employees also testified that the process of dumping the dust in
the landfills would result in “white cloud coming down the[] fields” of nearby farms.
(Pls.’ PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #362) ¶ 36 (Genett Depo. (‘286 dkt. #232) 25).)

24

In addition, unloading the waste, employees would sweep the trailers, resulting in
further release of asbestos fibers into the air. For some portion of the relevant period, the
waste trucks were loaded by backing up to a dock, which was open to the outside,
resulting in further dispersal of asbestos dust, although defendant points to other
employees’ testimony that, at some point, mineral core waste and dust was sprayed with
water before loading it into trucks for disposal.
ii.

Anecdotal Evidence of Dust in Households and the Community
More Generally

Plaintiffs contend that mineral core dust was “off-white” and had a “distinctive
appearance.” (Pls.’ PFOFs (’286 dkt. #362) (quoting Koepke Depo. (‘286 dkt. #353)
54-55).) Members of the community, including plaintiffs, testified that their laundry
would be lighter in color or covered in dust after having been hung outdoors and that
dust would settle on windows and window sills of homes located near the plant. (Pls.’
PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #362) ¶¶ 40-45.) Members of the community also wrote letters to the
local newspaper complaining about dust settling on clean laundry.

Finally, plaintiffs

maintain that Weyerhaeuser, including the corporate office in Washington, were aware
of complaints made by community members.
In contrast, defendant points to other portions of the same witnesses’ deposition
testimony in which they testified that: (1) sometimes the dust was black or some other
color; (2) the dust was present either before or after the period that Weyerhaeuser used
asbestos; and (3) they were not certain of the source of the dust. (See Def.’s PFOFs (‘286
dkt. #223) ¶¶ 19-24, 37, 59, 70, 73, 99, 112, 114-22.)

In addition to calling into

question the veracity of the individual accounts of “dust” in and around homes close to
25

the plant, Weyerhaeuser points out that almost every department in the facility had
machinery that generated waste or dust.
quantity of wood dust.

In particular, the plant produced a large

Dust could also come from (1) boilers that burned other

materials, including coal, (2) stacks from the particleboard plant, and (3) baghouses that
collected dust from a variety of departments. Dust could further come from the fuel
boiler, the particle board plant, the Heil dryer and other dryers.

Even beyond the

Weyerhaeuser plant, there were dirt and gravel roads in Marshfield. A cement plant was
also considered a source of dust. Plaintiffs do not dispute this, but contend that at least
one source of the dust emitted from the Weyerhaeuser plant was mineral core or Kaylo
dust.
While none of the plaintiffs’ residences have ever been tested for asbestos, some of
the plaintiffs or other family members testified to “dust” on cars, and in and around their
respective homes, as detailed above.

Moreover, one theory of household exposure

involves asbestos fibers brought home on the work clothes of plaintiffs’ parents or other
family members.12
iii.

Emissions and Air and Soil Testing

In December 1973, Weyerhaeuser conducted an analysis of the particulate
material collected during emissions tests for the presence of asbestos. No asbestos fibers
were detected.

In 1974, Weyerhaeuser’s industrial hygienist Joseph Wendlick also

Plaintiffs are bound by the court’s ruling that Wisconsin’s Workers’ Compensation Act would
preclude recovery for any injuries the workers named in this suit caused by asbestos fibers brought
home by those workers themselves. (See 8/22/14 Op. & Order (‘286 dkt. #94).)
12

26

conducted air sampling tests for asbestos at five locations within a few blocks from the
plant. The results reflected levels between 0.003 to 0.005 fibers per cubic centimeter.
In their response to defendant’s proposed findings of facts, plaintiffs contend that
the tests cannot be “accepted as professionally valid” in light of the fact that there is no
documentation of the testing and Wendlick was unable to describe the conditions of the
sampling at his March 2014 deposition. (Pls.’ Resp. to Def.’s PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #361) ¶
124.)

Curiously, however, at the Daubert hearing, plaintiffs’ expert Frank Parker

purported to rely on Wendlick’s testing to support his conclusion that there were
significant asbestos emissions from the plant. (12/3/15 Hearing Tr. (‘286 dkt. #455)
154.)

In addition, plaintiffs themselves submitted Wendlick’s more favorable (for

plaintiffs) test results from areas close to the dumpsites. (Parker Rept. (‘286 dkt. #263);
id., Ex. 1 (dkt. #263-1); 12/3/15 Hearing Tr. (‘286 dkt. #455) 154, 185, 199; Pls.’
PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #362) ¶ 30 (citing Herrick Decl., Ex. 4 (‘286 dkt. #360-4) (reporting
concentrations ranged from 0.019 to 0.227 f/cc one-quarter from the dumpsite, to 0.122
to 0.445 f/cc 100 feet from the dumpsite)).)
D. Connection between Asbestos Exposure and Mesothelioma and Lung
Cancer
The association between the development of mesothelioma and the inhalation of
asbestos fibers is so strong that mesothelioma is known as a “signature disease” -- one for
which a single causative agent, asbestos, has been identified, and without exposure to
which, the disease does not typically occur. Regardless, there is no dispute in this case
that plaintiffs Boyer, Masephol, Pecher, Seehafer, Sydow and Treutel developed

27

mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure. Instead, the core dispute is whether any
non-occupational exposure was a substantial contributing factor to plaintiffs’ contracting
the disease.
Plaintiffs contend that medical literature demonstrates that there is no level of
exposure to asbestos below which clinical effects do not occur. Weyerhaeuser contends
that this statement is misleading at best, particularly in light of at least one of the
publications cited by plaintiffs that provides a “permissible exposure limit.” (Def.’s Resp.
to Pls.’ PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #384) ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs also represent that medical literature
contains “case reports of mesothelioma caused by as little as a few months, weeks or even
days of asbestos exposure” (Pls.’ PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #362) ¶ 4), though Weyerhaeuser
points out that the same reports “show that mesothelioma is typically detected after
many years of occupational exposure” (Def.’s Resp. to Pls.’ PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #384) ¶ 4).
Finally, the Helsinki Criteria for Diagnosis and Attribution provides criteria diagnosis
and attribution to asbestos, and states that for mesothelioma, “‘a history of significant
occupational, domestic or environmental exposures to asbestos’ would suffice for
attribution.” (Def.’s Resp. to Pls.’ PFOFs (‘286 dkt. #384) ¶ 5 (citing Herrick Decl., Ex.
20 (‘286 dkt. #36-22) 311-12 (emphasis added)).)13
As for lung cancer caused by asbestos exposure, the relative risk is estimated to
increase from 0.5 to 4% for each fiber per cubic centimeter per year (fiber-years) of

Plaintiffs cite to the 1997 Helsinki Criteria, but, as defendant points out, the document was
updated in 2014. Nonetheless, the 2014 document contains the same requirement that there
must be a history of “significant” exposure to attribute mesothelioma to asbestos. (See Ellis Decl.,
Ex. P (dkt. #389-2).)
13

28

cumulative exposure. As a result, one year of “heavy” exposure or five to ten years of
“moderate” exposure may increase the risk of developing lung cancer two-fold or more.
(Pls.’ PFOFs (‘143 dkt. #302) ¶ 2.)14
Still, as defendant points out the dose of asbestos required to produce lung cancer
is “much higher” than that required for mesothelioma. (Def.’s Resp. to Pls.’ PFOFs (‘143
dkt. #320) ¶ 2 (quoting 6/1/15 Anderson Depo. (‘143 dkt. #212) 101-02); see also
Parker’s Prust Rept. (‘143 dkt. #209) p.3 (“It also appears that the dose of asbestos
[concentration X time] required to produce lung cancer is much higher than that required
for mesothelioma.” (bracket in original)).) Here, defendant concedes that plaintiffs Prust
and Heckel developed lung cancer at least in part as a result of asbestos exposure, but as
with plaintiffs’ contracting mesothelioma, disputes that any non-occupational exposure
was a substantial contributing factor.

OPINION
I. Daubert Motion
Relying on Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), defendant Weyerhaeuser Company moved to
strike the trial testimony of three of plaintiffs’ experts -- Frank Parker, Dr. Henry
Anderson,

and

Dr.

Jerrold

Abraham.

Consistent

with

Wisconsin

Worker’s

Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision, the court previously limited plaintiffs’ public

The 1997 Helsinki criteria defines “heavy exposure” to include “manufacture of asbestos
products, asbestos spraying, insulation work with asbestos materials, [and] demolition of old
buildings.” (Herrick Decl., Ex. 20 (‘143 dkt. #300-22) 4.) “Moderate exposure” includes
“construction and shipbuilding.” (Id.)
14

29

and private nuisance claims against Weyerhaeuser to those based on injuries caused by
community and household exposure, and then only that household exposure not caused
by plaintiffs bringing home asbestos fibers on their own work clothing. (See 8/22/14 Op.
& Order (‘286 dkt. #94).)15

In its Daubert motion, Weyerhaeuser takes issue with

plaintiffs’ expert’s proposed opinion testimony that community and household exposures
“contributed to [p]laintiffs’ injuries.” (Def.’s Br. (‘286 dkt. #299) 2.)
Among other arguments, defendant contends that plaintiffs’ experts have not and
“cannot

untangle Plaintiffs’

occupational exposures from

any non-occupational

exposures.” (Id. at 3.) Most notably, as defendant points out and plaintiffs’ experts
acknowledge, “[t]here is no evidence in the record of any Marshfield community member
having any asbestos-related condition other than former plant employees.”

(Id.)

In

addition to that core concern, Weyerhaeuser takes issue with the lack of data and facts
demonstrating that substantial amounts of asbestos were introduced into the community
and plaintiffs’ households.
On December 3, 2015, the court held a hearing on defendant’s Daubert motion,
during which defendant’s and plaintiffs’ counsel presented argument and the court heard
testimony from Frank and Anderson. (12/3/15 Hearing Tr. (‘286 dkt. #455).)

In other words, plaintiffs’ household exposure is limited to instances where other family
members brought asbestos fibers home from their respective employment with Weyerhaeuser.
15

30

A. Summary of Three Experts’ Testimony
i.

Frank Parker

Parker is a certified industrial hygienist, certified safety professional, engineer,
diplomate environmental engineer, and licensed individual asbestos consultant.

Parker

analyzed documents provided by plaintiffs’ counsel concerning the fire door
manufacturing operations at Weyerhaeuser, purportedly using a “Systems Approach,”
which provides a picture of plant operations related to emission of asbestos and exposure
to workers, the community and household members.” (Parker Rept. (‘286 dkt. #263) 7.)
In his general report, Parker listed fourteen opinions. (Id. at 39-41.) In addition to
drafting one overarching / general report, Parker also submitted a report for each of the
plaintiffs detailing his or her individual asbestos exposure, including occupational,
community and household sources. (See, e.g., Parker’s Boyer Rept. (‘286 dkt. #451-10).)
Pertinent to this motion, Parker reviewed records describing visible emissions into
the community and concluded that “[i]f we take a very conservative fugitive emission
rate of 1% and based on Rennord’s [a Weyerhaeuser’s engineer from 1967] estimates,
then Weyerhaeuser most likely emitted into the local community some 1.2 tons/year of
chrysotile and 2.35 tons/year of Amosite asbestos.” (Parker Rept. (‘286 dkt. #263) 17.)
Parker details various avenues for community exposure, including disposal of waste,
transportation of contaminated materials, filter inefficiencies, etc. (Id. at 16-19.) As for
household exposure, Parker opines that fibers were carried out of the plant and into the
house itself, in air, in contaminated vehicles or on clothing.

31

Parker also reviews studies of bystanders (employees of companies that used
asbestos, but who were not specifically exposed to asbestos in their work), community
and household exposure from other locations, including instances, for example, of
housewives developing asbestos-related diseases from handling clothing and other items
that had asbestos fibers on it. (Id. at 26-37.) Parker does not cite to any studies specific
to Marshfield.
Ultimately, Parker offers the following key opinions in his reports:


Plaintiffs were “significantly occupationally exposed to asbestos”: “Persons
handling and/or disturbing raw asbestos and/or the fire door cores were
significantly occupationally exposed to asbestos fibers;” and “People who were
simply on the plan site were most likely exposed to asbestos in significant
concentrations.” (Id. at 39-40.)16



Community exposure was “in excess of typical ambient [background]
concentrations.” (Id. at 40.)



“Household members who lived and/or visited houses where workers or other
contaminated persons or things entered the house were exposed to airborne
asbestos concentration in excess of typical ambient [background]
concentrations.” (Id. at 40.)



Each specific plaintiff received “significant asbestos exposures” based on either
(1) living at a house located close to the plant; (2) attending school at a school
located close to the plant; (3) visiting Marshfield; and/or (4) living with a
family member who worked at the plant. (See, e.g., Parker’s Boyer Rept. (‘286
dkt. #451-10) 5-6.)

Parker also opines that contaminated workers were allowed to leave the plant with asbestos on
their clothes and in their car (Parker Rept. (‘286 dkt. #263) 40), but any claim based on this type
of exposure is also barred by the exclusivity provision of the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation
Act. (See 8/22/14 Op. & Order (‘286 dkt. #94).)
16

32

ii.

Henry A. Anderson, M.D.

Henry A. Anderson, M.D., is a board certified physician in occupation and
environmental medicine and currently Chief Medical Officer for Occupation and
Environmental Health and State Occupation and Environmental Epidemiologist with the
Wisconsin Division of Public Health.

Dr. Anderson also prepared on overarching/

general report and a shorter report for each of the eight plaintiffs.
In the general report, Anderson provided an overview of Roddis/Weyerhaeuser
Marshfield door plant, including his personal experience with the plant in the 1970s and
1980s concerning vinyl chloride, though not asbestos.

Anderson also summarized

Parker’s report concerning asbestos releases into the community.
Pertinent to this Daubert challenge, Anderson describes how diseases develop from
asbestos exposure:
Asbestos related diseases are the product of multiple
exposures to asbestos fibers inhaled through the lungs. A
small percentage of these fibers are retained in the lungs
causing an insult to the tissue. All exposures to asbestos
fibers are considered to contribute to the disease process.
This opinion is supported by the human epidemiologic
studies that demonstrate a dose-response relationship
between asbestos exposure and the risk of disease. In other
words, the more fibers a person inhales[,] the higher the risk
of developing clinical disease.
(Anderson Rept. (‘286 dkt. #262) 6.) Anderson also reviewed studies describing four
types of asbestos exposure: (1) occupational; (2) bystander; (3) household and (4)
community. (Id. at 8-9.) Anderson then reviewed studies linking asbestos to cancer,
including mesothelioma.

33

Specific to household and community exposure, Anderson cited studies describing
instances of asbestos-related diseases solely based on household exposure. (Id. at 12-14.)
Although none of these studies were specific to Marshfield, Anderson still relied on these
studies in opining that:
The cluster of six mesothelioma cases reported to be
diagnosed between 2012 to 2014 in Marshfield is consistent
with the published literature and other data about the impact
on surrounding neighborhoods from a single major source
point for asbestos fiber emissions. This data can be relied
upon as scientific evidence supporting causation from
Roddis/Weyerhaeuser Marshfield door plant emissions as the
source for each of the individual victims.
(Id. at 15.) Notably, Anderson did not attempt to distinguish the occupational exposure
from the household or community exposure.
Finally, Anderson offers the following key opinions in his report:


“The cumulative exposure to asbestos adds to the risk of developing asbestos
disease and is the cause of asbestos related disease.” (Id. at 20.)



“Within a radius of 1.25 miles or greater, emissions of asbestos from the
Marshfield door plant operations increased the risk of developing asbestos
related diseases.” (Id. at 21.)



Plaintiffs’ “occupational, household and community exposure . . . each
substantially contributed to his cumulative lifetime asbestos exposure which
caused” mesothelioma or lung cancer. (Anderson’s Boyer Rept. (‘286 dkt.
#451-1) 4.)
iii.

Jerrold L. Abraham, M.D.

Jerrold L. Abraham, M.D., is a Professor of Pathology and Director of
Environmental and Occupational Pathology at University Pathologists Laboratories, LLP.
Dr. Abraham reviewed each plaintiff’s medical record and provided a very brief, one-page
report, confirming each plaintiff’s diagnosis of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related
34

cancer.

Abraham relied on Parker’s report to state that each plaintiff “has exposure

occupationally, in the community and also in the household.” (Abraham’s Boyer Rept.
(‘286 dkt. #265) 1.)
B. Overview of Legal Standard
The admissibility of expert testimony in federal courts is governed principally by
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
579 (1993). Rule 702 provides:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the
evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods
to the facts of the case.
A district court functions as a “gatekeeper” regarding expert testimony. The court
must determine whether a party’s proffered expert testimony is relevant and reliable.
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 589; see also United States v. Johnsted, 30 F. Supp. 3d 814, 816 (W.D.
Wis. 2013) (expert testimony must be “not only relevant, but reliable”). Although expert
testimony is “liberally admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence,” Lyman v. St. Jude
Med. S.C., Inc., 580 F. Supp. 2d 719, 723 (E.D. Wis. 2008), it must satisfy the following
three-part test:
35

(1) the witness must be qualified “as an expert by knowledge,
skill, experience, training, or education,” Fed. R. Evid. 702;
(2) the expert’s reasoning or methodology underlying the
testimony must be scientifically reliable, Daubert, 509 U.S. at
592-93; and
(3) the testimony must assist the trier of fact to understand
the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Fed. R. Evid.
702.
Ervin v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 492 F.3d 901, 904 (7th Cir. 2007). “Vigorous crossexamination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of
proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible
evidence.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596.
C. Core Challenges to Reliability
For the purposes of deciding the present Daubert motions, as well as defendant’s
motions for summary judgment, the court credits Drs. Anderson’s and Dr. Abraham’s
respective testimony that plaintiffs’ mesothelioma and lung cancer were caused by
asbestos exposure from Weyerhaeuser’s use of asbestos in the production of fireproof
door cores. As clarified during the Daubert hearing, defendant’s first challenges whether
Parker, in particular, can reliably testify to significant asbestos emissions into the
community from the plant. The court takes up this challenge first before turning to the
main challenge to plaintiffs’ expert’s causation testimony -- whether plaintiffs’ experts can
reliably testify that plaintiffs’ non-occupational exposure was a substantial contributing
factor to each plaintiff’s asbestos-related injuries.

36

i.

Reliability of Opinions on Asbestos Emissions and Community
Exposures

Defendant takes issue with the lack of facts or data supporting Parker’s opinion
testimony that emissions from the Weyerhaeuser plant created “significant” community
and household exposures. (Def.’s Br. (‘286 dkt. #300) 16.) In particular, Weyerhaeuser
points out that despite Parker’s testimony that present-day attic sampling is useful in
cases such as these, the attic and soil testing he completed in these cases were all negative
for any detectable asbestos in any of the samples.17 Weyerhaeuser points out further that
these studies were not disclosed by plaintiffs until Weyerhaeuser noted time on Parker’s
invoice for conducting those studies. At the hearing, Parker testified that he did not
disclose these test results because they were conducted by someone else in his office,
although he acknowledged having “the impression [the tests] were negative.” (12/3/15
Hearing Tr. (‘286 dkt. #455) 150.)
Certainly, Parker’s failure to conduct more testing, particularly when coupled with
his failure to disclose the results of testing that undermine his opinions in this case,
impacts his credibility.

Still, Parker offered other evidence bolstering his opinion,

meaning that a jury may still determine if Parker’s opinions are well founded overall,
rather than this court striking his testimony altogether based on this single contradiction.
Weyerhaeuser also argues that Parker’s reliance on reports of “dust” in the
community without speaking with individuals or otherwise ascertaining the nature of the
As Parker explained in his report, “[a] very important characteristic of an asbestos fiber is that
it does not naturally decompose into something that no longer is asbestos. Every asbestos fibril
released in a workplace is somewhere today; it does not magically transform itself or vanish.”
(Parker Rept. (‘286 dkt. #263) 22.)
17

37

dust renders his testimony unreliable. (Def.’s Br. (‘286 dkt. #300) 20-21.) Specifically,
Weyerhaeuser points to evidence that: (1) none of the individuals who described the
dust knew its content; and (2) the descriptions of dust occurred before and after the
period in which asbestos was used at the plant. (See supra Undisputed Facts § C.ii.) See
also Korte v. Exxonmobil Coal USA, Inc., 164 F. App’x 553, 557 (7th Cir. 2006)
(unpublished) (affirming district court’s order striking expert testimony where expert “did
not rely on tests conducted on the [coal] dust found in or around the Kortes’ property[,]
. . . did not know the chemical composition of the dust on the Kortes' property, and
could not verify that the dust emanated from Exxon’s RDAs. Dr. Orris also did not
conduct or rely on tests measuring the amount of exposure in order to opine whether the
dose to which the plaintiff was exposed is sufficient to cause the disease.”) (internal
citation and quotation marks omitted).
In response, plaintiffs point out that Parker reasonably relied on: (1)
Weyerhaeuser’s own asbestos measurements in the Marshfield community in the 1970s;
(2) anecdotal evidence of off-white dust emanating from the mineral core plant where
asbestos doors were being made and then leaving the plant; (3) evidence of the quantity
of asbestos products being processed in the plant, coupled with evidence of issues with
the plant’s ventilation system and handling of waste materials; and (4) his own expertise
as to asbestos drift and dust dispersion. While none of this is overwhelming, or even
necessarily persuasive to this court, it is evidence and science based, which is
appropriately considered by the trier of fact.

(Pls.’ Opp’n (‘286 dkt. #359) 33-35;

12/3/15 Hearing Tr. (‘286 dkt. #455) 143 (listing evidence), 172 (company records of
38

asbestos production and management; “All that data shows you that this plant . . . is
producing high concentrations of asbestos and it’s not well controlled.”), 184-85
(describing Wendlick’s testing for Weyerhaeuser).)
Defendant is, of course, correct to point out anecdotal evidence of black or other
colored dust not matching the asbestos-dust description, as well as evidence of dust that
occurred before or after asbestos was used at the plant, but the fact that other dust was
produced and dispersed from the plant or existed in the community does not foreclose
asbestos dust also being present in significant amounts, especially given (1)
Weyerhaeuser’s own testing, (2) the amounts of asbestos used in the manufacture of
doors during the relevant period, and (3) the amount of waste coming from the mineral
core bag house and surrounding areas. As Parker himself conceded at the hearing, there
are many sources of dust, but one might still reasonably conclude, as he did, that at least
some significant portion of the dust came from asbestos manufacturing.

(12/3/15

Hearing Tr. (‘286 dkt. #455) 163-65; see also Pls.’ Opp’n (‘286 dkt. #359) 35.)
ii.

Reliability of Opinions on Significant Community or Household
Exposure

Even assuming some general community and household exposures to asbestos,
defendant takes issue with the absence of any quantification by Parker of the level or
concentration of asbestos in the community -- and in particular plaintiffs’ homes -concluding instead that the exposures were “above background” levels. While the court
credits defendant’s argument to a point -- as discussed below, plaintiffs will have to
demonstrate significant exposure in order to demonstrate that non-occupational exposure
to asbestos was a substantial contributing factor -- it is not necessary for plaintiffs’
39

experts to assign a specific quantity of exposure to opine about its’ significance. With
respect to his testimony that the community and household exposures would have
exceeded “background levels,” Parker opined at his deposition that “if you can see the
asbestos dust with human vision, then you have a real concern about reaching the OEL
[occupational exposure limit].” (Pls.’ Opp’n (‘286 dkt. #359) 41.)
Moreover, Parker did estimate the amount of asbestos emissions as approximately
3 tons of asbestos per year based on some records of asbestos production and his
assumption of a fugitive emission rate of 1%, which had at least some basis in the science
and his own experience.

While defendant also challenges Parker’s methodology, any

criticism about this 1% estimate again goes more to the weight than admissibility. See
Stollings v. Ryobi Techs., Inc., 725 F.3d 753, 767 (7th Cir. 2013) (reversing district court’s
order striking testimony, concluding that “[t]he judge should have let the jury determine
how the uncertainty about the effectiveness rate affected the weight of Graham’s
testimony”). At the hearing, Parker also credibly testified that the 1% emission rate for
industrial processes is a “fairly low number” based on his “years of experience [looking] at
studies about efficiency in process plants.” (12/3/15 Hearing Tr. (‘286 dkt. #455) 145.)
The court is satisfied that Parker’s analysis is based on sufficient, reliable evidence and
science for a reasonable jury to conclude that asbestos dispersion into the Marshfield
Community was occurring during the period the Weyerhaeuser was using it to
manufacture doors.
Of course, defendant also has fodder for effective cross-examination on this
subject, but none of its challenges render Parker’s opinion testimony as to asbestos
40

emissions and related community and household exposure without a sufficient
evidentiary or scientific basis to be excluded altogether. Accordingly, the court will not
strike Parker’s opinion testimony on this subject.
iii.

Reliability of Opinion That Non-Employment Exposure Was a
Substantial Contributing Factor to Worker’s Asbestos-Related
Diseases

During their depositions, plaintiffs’ experts acknowledged that plaintiffs’
occupational exposures were the heaviest, so much so that those exposures could have
been the sole cause of plaintiffs’ respective injuries. (Def.’s Br. (‘286 dkt. #300) 15.)
Based on this, it is tempting to chalk up plaintiffs’ asbestos-related injuries to
occupational exposure, and indeed, this may well be the outcome of any trial. To prove
the causation element in plaintiffs’ nuisance claims, however, the law is settled that
plaintiffs need not demonstrate non-occupational exposures were the sole cause, the main
cause, or even the most likely cause of their disease. Rather, plaintiffs must demonstrate
only that the non-occupational exposures were “a substantial factor” in producing their
respective asbestos-related injuries. See Physicians Plus Ins. Corp. v. Midwest Mut. Ins. Co.,
2001 WI App 148, ¶ 59, 246 Wis. 2d 933, 632 N.W.2d 59.
In briefing, both sides spend a significant amount of time describing the “every
fiber” theory and addressing whether expert testimony on that theory is sufficient to
permit a reasonable jury to find causation. As became clear at the hearing, however,

41

plaintiffs’ experts are not adopting an “every fiber” theory.18 Instead, plaintiffs’ experts
propose to testify that:
(1) there is a dose-response relationship between exposure to
asbestos and disease--meaning that the greater an individual’s
cumulative exposure to asbestos, the greater the risk of
developing an asbestos-related disease; (2) low dose exposure
to asbestos can cause asbestos-related diseases, specifically
mesothelioma; (3) Plaintiffs’ asbestos-related diseases were
caused by their cumulative exposure to asbestos; and (4)
Plaintiffs’ community and household exposures to asbestos
from the Weyerhaeuser plant’s operations in Marshfield were
substantial factors in causing their injuries.
(Pls.’ Opp’n (‘286 dkt. #359) 43-44.)

Not surprisingly, defendant’s Daubert motion

focuses on the fourth element -- whether plaintiffs’ experts can reliably opine that the
community and household exposures were a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’
respective injuries?
The Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Tragarz v. Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411 (7th Cir.
1992), provides the best guidance on the causation requirement in asbestos cases, albeit
applying Illinois law, especially where there are multiple sources of asbestos exposure. In
the Tragarz case, multiple manufacturers were involved, while here the comparison is
between occupational versus non-occupational asbestos exposures, all of which were the
result of Weyerhaeuser’s manufacturing operations. In that case, the court considered:
(1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of causation; and
(2) whether the district court had erred in not allowing evidence of exposure to other

As the court explained at the hearing and for reasons set forth in this opinion, an “every fiber”
theory likely proves too little to find causation, but since this is not plaintiffs’ position, the court
need not consider whether such testimony would be sufficiently reliable for jury consideration.
18

42

manufacturer’s products on the issue of causation.

As for the first issue, the court

described what is necessary to demonstrate that “the exposure to the defendant’s asbestos
products was a substantial factor in causing the injured party’s disease,” which in turn
requires consideration of “the frequency, regularity, and proximity of exposure in
determining whether the injured party’s exposure to defendants’ asbestos products was a
substantial factor in causing the alleged injury.” 980 F.2d at 420.
As for the second issue, the Seventh Circuit concluded that evidence of exposure
to other manufacturer’s asbestos was not relevant to the issue of causation, rejecting
defendant’s argument (or at least the implication of its argument) that “the so-called
substantial factor test is a comparative test in which the jury assess all contributing
causes and determined which ones are substantial.”

Id. at 424.

Instead, “courts in

applying the substantial factor test do not seem concerned with which of the many
contributing causes are most substantial. Rather, they seem concerned with whether each
contributing cause, standing alone, is a substantial factor in causing the alleged injury.”
Id.
The court went on to explain the policy behind this.
[S]uppose a plaintiff shows that the amount of exposure that
it received from defendant A’s asbestos product was alone
sufficient to cause mesothelioma. If such a plaintiff was not
exposed to any other products, the plaintiff would have
sufficient evidence to support a finding that but for exposure
to the defendant A’s product the plaintiff would not have
gotten ill. On the other hand, under [defendants’] theory, if
the plaintiff was exposed to numerous other asbestos
products, the plaintiff might not be able to prove cause in fact
in a suit against defendant A because the same exposure to
defendant A’s product might not be substantial in
comparison to the exposure to the other products. Such a
43

result does not promote the purposes of the substantial factor
test, which is aimed at alleviating the inequities that result
when applying the but-for test in a multi-defendant case, not
at creating such inequities.
Id. at 425.
Obviously, plaintiffs’ cases here do not involve different asbestos manufacturers,
but this case still involves the need to distinguish between different types of exposure.
Importantly, there is no need to compare and weigh the types of exposure -- at least at
the liability stage. The court’s holding in Tragarz has been affirmed more recently in a
case involving benzene. In Schultz v. Akzo Nobel Paints, LLC, 721 F.3d 426 (7th Cir.
2013), the Seventh Circuit held that “to show that a toxin is ‘a cause’ or ‘a substantial
factor,’ [plaintiff] was not required to demonstrate that benzene exposure was the sole
cause of his disease, so long as he showed that benzene contributed substantially to the
disease’s development or significantly increased his risk of developing AML.” Id. at 433.
From this, the court concludes that the substantial factor test does not require
plaintiffs to compare their non-occupational exposures to their occupational exposures.
Still, a “substantial factor” or “substantial contributing factor” means something more
than a possible cause. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust,
424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005), “where a plaintiff relies on proof of exposure to establish
that a product was a substantial factor in causing injury, the plaintiff must show a high
enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in
the injury is more than conjectural.” Id. at 492
Here, plaintiffs principally rely on expert opinion testimony to draw the link for
the jury between their claimed, non-occupational exposures and their subsequent
44

development of asbestos-related injuries. In turn, plaintiffs’ experts Parker and Anderson
principally rely on epidemiological studies of other communities in which individuals
developed mesothelioma based on non-occupational exposure to asbestos -- either from
general community exposure or from fibers of family members who worked in asbestos
facilities, to opine that plaintiffs’ non-occupational exposures were substantial
contributing factors to plaintiffs’ respective asbestos-related diseases.
As described in the facts section above, six of the eight plaintiffs suffered from
mesothelioma, while the other two suffered from lung cancer.

This distinction is

meaningful in describing the experts’ support for their respective opinions on causation.
As such, the court will first discuss the expert’s opinions regarding mesothelioma
plaintiffs, then turn its attention to those plaintiffs who developed lung cancer.
a. Causation Evidence for Mesothelioma Plaintiffs
For those plaintiffs who suffered from mesothelioma, the experts rely on Valérie
Bourdès et al., Environmental Exposure to Asbestos and Risk of Pleural Mesothelioma: A Review
and Meta-Analysis, 16 European J. of Epidemiology 411 (2000), which is a “study-ofstudies,” in this case a review of eight other studies of household asbestos exposure and
neighborhood or community exposure. (Ellis Decl., Ex. G (‘286 dkt. #301-7).) From the
Bourdès paper and the eight underlying studies, plaintiffs’ experts identified a so-called
“zone of risk” in Marshfield with the plant at a center of a circle with a 1.25 mile radius.
As Parker explained, the significance of the 1.25 miles radius “is concentration,
maintaining a concentration that provides you some sort of dose.” (12/3/15 Hearing Tr.
(‘286 dkt. #455) 178; see also id. at 89-90 (Anderson testifying to significance of 1.25
45

miles radius).) Based on these studies, plaintiffs’ experts also acknowledge that time is
another necessary factor in attributing a disease to asbestos exposure. (Id. at 90, 93,
178.) Anderson testified that the relevant time in these studies about community or
household exposure is at least one year. (Id. at 82, 103.)
As mentioned already, both experts also rely on the Helsinki criteria for
attributing a disease to asbestos exposure. (See Herrick Decl., Ex. 46 (‘286 dkt. #35564) (Helsinki Criteria (1997)); Ellis Decl., Ex. P (‘286 dkt. #389-2) (Helsinki Criteria
(2014, 2015)).)

For mesothelioma, those criteria require “a history of significant

occupational, domestic or environmental exposure” to attribute causation to asbestos.
(Ellis Decl., Ex. P (‘286 dkt. #389-2) p.2 (emphasis added).)
Not surprisingly, defendant criticizes plaintiffs’ experts’ reliance on these studies,
arguing that neither Parker nor Anderson sufficiently compared the communities studied
with the area around the Marshfield plant in opining that plaintiffs’ exposure here was
significant.

Of course, defendant may cross-examine plaintiffs’ experts Parker and

Anderson at trial on whether the circumstances during the relevant period in Marshfield
were sufficiently similar to make a viable comparison with the areas surrounding the
communities that experienced instances of mesothelioma based on non-occupational
exposure. In particular, defendant may challenge the experts’ reliance on those studies
based on the amount of asbestos at issue in those plants and the length of time during
which asbestos was in use in those communities, as well as the amount and likely
dispersion of its use. (See Hearing Tr. (‘286 dkt. #455) 23-24).) And the jury may well
reject that comparison because those experts’ failed to take into consideration adequately
46

the differences between Marshfield and those other communities, but the court does not
find that Parker and Anderson’s reliance on those studies renders their testimony
patently unreliable.
On the contrary, these qualified experts appear to have reasonably concluded that
the Helsinski criteria and Bourdès study of studies is the best available science to draw a
comparison.

At minimum, this comparison suggests some injury if plaintiffs’ lived

sufficiently close to the Marshfield plant for a sufficient period of time. It is then up to
the trier of fact to decide if this admittedly imperfect comparison is sufficient to
constitute proof of a significant exposure.
In their submissions, plaintiffs also hint at other exposures, namely from running
errands in the community, attending school, or driving past the landfills used to dispose
of asbestos materials. Anderson conceded during the Daubert hearing that there are no
studies that provide a basis for experts to testify about the impact of those activities, at
least standing alone, and certainly none that support a finding that these activities would
result in a significant exposure, much less render reliable expert testimony that exposure
from those activities was a substantial factor contributing to the plaintiffs’ asbestos-related
diseases. (12/3/15 Hearing Tr. (‘286 dkt. #455) 87.) Instead, plaintiffs’ experts are left
with the general proposition that any exposure is a contributing factor, which may well
be true but would render the legal requirement of a significant factor meaningless.
Accordingly, the court will not allow a plaintiff’s claim to go forward based on these
alleged activities alone.

47

Finally, plaintiffs point to exposure from other family members bringing asbestos
fibers home from the family member’s employment with Weyerhaeuser.

As

Weyerhaeuser argued at the Daubert hearing, while a number of plaintiffs put forth
evidence of a family member working at the plant and coming home with “dust” on their
clothing, plaintiffs fail to put forth sufficient evidence that the family member worked in
the mineral core area. In fact, most of the family members worked in other areas of the
plant. As such, while plaintiffs remain free to put forth such evidence at trial, the court
will not allow a plaintiff’s claim to proceed based on evidence that a family member
worked at Weyerhaeuser alone, particularly without evidence that (1) the family
member’s work involved significant, ongoing exposure to asbestos or (2) for some other
reason, the clothing they regularly brought home was likely to result in a significant
exposure to plaintiff.
Applying this framework here, the court finds that plaintiffs’ experts’ opinion
testimony on causation is sufficiently reliable for the following three plaintiffs, based on
proof that they lived in a home within 1.25 miles of the plant for at least one year:


Boyer, who lived within 1.07 miles of the plant from 1975 to 1979;



Pecher, who lived at two homes approximately 0.6 mile and 0.51 mile,
respectively, from the plant from 1960 to at least 1979;



Sydow, who lived at two homes approximately 0.5 mile and 1.1 miles,
respectively, from the plant from 1957 to at least the time of his deposition in
this lawsuit;

(See discussion, supra, Facts § B.)
Unfortunately, for plaintiffs Masephol, Seehafer and Jacobs/Treutel, however,
there is simply insufficient evidence to support the opinions of their experts Parker and
48

Anderson of significant, non-occupational exposure, which (as discussed) is a predicate to
the expert’s opinions that this exposure was a substantial factor contributing to their
respective asbestos-related diseases. Plaintiff Masephol lived outside of Marshfield his
entire life. His only evidence to support a non-occupational exposure claim comes from
(1) his father’s work at the plant in maintenance, without any direct evidence that his
father worked in the mineral core department, and (2) his travel within Marshfield,
neither of which independently or combined form a scientific basis for plaintiffs’ experts
to testify reliably that he had significant, non-occupational exposure for reasons already
explained above.
The same holds true for plaintiff Seehafer. The only evidence of non-occupational
exposure Seehafer offers is that he lived with his brother for a few months in 1966 at an
unknown address in Marshfield. As described above, both experts testified that time is a
necessary component of the epidemiological studies.

A few months living with his

brother at an unknown address forms an insufficient basis from which the experts could
testify reliably that Seehafer had significant, non-occupational exposure to asbestos.
Seehafer also stopped at his ex-wife’s house, which was within 1.25 miles of the plant, for
about 10 to fifteen minutes once a week to pick up his children, which is at most
comparable to running errands within Marshfield.

As explained above, there is no

recognized scientific basis (or at least not one offered in response to defendant’s motions
here) for the experts to opine that these activities form a sufficient basis to find
significant non-occupational exposure.

49

Finally, Treutel (represented by her daughter Jones) lived outside of Marshfield
her entire life. Her only evidence of exposure comes from her daughter, who worked very
briefly in the mineral core department. Unlike the other plaintiffs, this is evidence that a
family member worked in the mineral core department, but it is also undisputed that her
daughter’s employment was limited to one summer. As such, even if Treutel suffered
household exposure from her daughter’s clothing, she has failed to put forth sufficient
evidence on the length of exposure for experts to testify reliably that Jacobs sustained
significant, non-occupational exposure to support a jury finding that those exposures
substantially contributed to her mesothelioma.
Given the limits of scientific knowledge, the court readily acknowledges the
difficulty of drawing any parameters as to the minimum exposure that would permit an
expert to testify reliably that an individual plaintiff sustained significant, nonoccupational exposures to asbestos. For reasons already explained, however, the science
certainly requires some combination of quantity, regularity and proximity of asbestos
exposure before it could be found “significant,” unless that legal term has no meaning.
Obviously, the science would support an expert’s opinion of significant exposure, and by
implication, an exposure that substantially contributed to contracting mesothelioma, if
one were to have been bathed in asbestos just one time, worked with asbestos in an
occupational setting or been exposed to asbestos over a longer period of time in a nonoccupational setting.
Since the plaintiffs’ non-occupational exposure to asbestos is, at best, uncertain as
to quantity, regularity and proximity, plaintiffs’ experts rely in part on a reasonable,
50

scientific-based substitute for these variables by virtue of studies suggesting that living
within 1.25 miles of a plant using asbestos in manufacturing for some period of time is
sufficient to presume a significant, non-occupational exposure, even if there is no
evidence that anyone except someone working in the mineral core department of the
Weyerhaeuser plant ever actually contracted the disease.

As discussed, however,

plaintiffs Masephol, Seehafer and Jacobs/Treutel never lived within 1.25 miles of the
plant; indeed, they never lived within 5 miles of the plant. Nor is there evidence that
they experienced other, non-occupational exposures to a large amount of asbestos for a
short period of time, a medium amount for a medium period of time, or a smaller
amount for a longer period of time. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ experts have no reliable basis
to opine that plaintiffs Masephol, Seehafer and Jacobs/Treutel’s respective exposure to
asbestos in a non-occupational setting was “significant” or a “substantial contributor” to
mesothelioma, at least in any way supported by peer review studies or other reliable data.
This is not to say that the science precludes the experts’ opinion that even a small, single
exposure may “contribute” to the contracting of mesothelioma, only that the science does
not support a legal finding that only small and occasional, non-occupational exposure
would substantially contribute to contracting mesothelioma.
Regardless, given the lack of (or at most, truly meager) scientific support for that
latter proposition, the court cannot ignore the real possibility that any trier of fact might
be unable to balance defendant’s right to exclude liability or damages for occupational
exposures under worker’s compensation laws against the understandable, if unduly
prejudicial, sympathy that would be engendered at a trial in light of the inexorable pain
51

and death that results from this disease. Accordingly, plaintiffs Masephol, Seehafer and
Jacobs/Treutel have failed to offer expert opinions that would support a finding of
liability against defendant and, absent that, offer no other evidence that would permit a
reasonable trier of fact to find liability.
b. Causation Evidence for Lung Cancer Plaintiffs
The bulk of the epidemiological studies -- or at least the experts’ focus here -concerns mesothelioma. Two of the six plaintiffs, Heckel and Prust, suffered from lung
cancer.

As defendant points out in its separate motion to strike plaintiffs’ proffered

expert opinions as to lung cancer, there are specific causation issues unique to these cases.
(See, e.g., Def.’s Mot. to Exclude Expert Lung Cancer Testimony (‘459 dkt. #258); Def.’s
Br. (‘459 dkt. #259).) Anderson points to a single study concerning lung cancer, the
Kumagai study, which concerned the prevalence of lung cancer in one quadrant of an
asbestos plant in Japan. Critically, the study did not concern community or household
exposure, at least as we understand it here. The study found a “slightly elevated risk for
lung cancer just in the men that lived in that quadrant” of the plant. (12/3/15 Hearing
Tr. (‘286 dkt. #455) 81.) Nonetheless, plaintiffs’ experts rely on the same 1.25 mile
zone of risk radius for these plaintiffs without any scientific support for its application to
lung cancer patients.
Moreover, under the Helsinki criteria, the standard for attributing causation for
lung cancer to asbestos is not as straightforward as the standard applied to mesothelioma:
Pleural plaques are indicators of exposure to asbestos fibers.
Because pleural plaques may be associated with low levels of
exposure, the attribution of lung cancer to asbestos must be
52

supported by an occupational history of substantial asbestos
exposure or measures of asbestos fibre burden, [i.e.], pleural
plaques alone are insufficient for the attribution of lung
cancer to asbestos.”
(Ellis Decl., Ex. P (‘286 dkt. #389-2) 3.)
Consistent with the science then, plaintiffs Prust and Heckel must demonstrate
non-occupational asbestos exposure that is comparable to that sustained in the
occupational setting. In other words, for plaintiffs’ experts to rely on the Kumagai study
in Japan, which after all involved exposure in a plant, there must be evidence that Prust’s
and Heckel’s non-occupational asbestos exposures were comparable to exposure one
would experience working in a plant that processes asbestos before it could be found
significant and substantially contributing to contracting lung disease.
Plaintiff Prust’s evidence of non-occupational exposure is limited to him living in
close proximity to the plant, approximately 0.18 mile from the Weyerhaeuser plant from
1955 to 1960 (notably, it appears that only the last year would be material, since this is
when the plant started using asbestos in the manufacture of doors), and living
approximately 1.2 or more miles from the plant from 1963 until some unknown date.
Prust also reported that he attended church and frequently visited restaurants close to
the plant.
Plaintiff Heckel’s evidence of non-occupational exposure is similarly limited. She
lived at locations in Marshfield from approximately 1966 to 1978, though she did not
contract mesothelioma.

In addition, her husband worked in the boiler room at

Weyerhaeuser in the mid-1960s, though plaintiff offers no evidence of his exposure to

53

asbestos, and in turn, no meaningful evidence of any household exposure on the part of
Mrs. Heckel because of her husband’s employment.
For both plaintiffs, this is simply an insufficient factual basis for their experts to
testify reliably that non-occupational exposures were comparable to those in the
occupational setting, nor that the level of exposure met any scientifically recognized level
to contribute substantially to contracting lung cancer. Accordingly, the court will strike
Parker and Anderson’s respective opinions on causation as to plaintiffs Prust and Heckel,
and in the absence of any other evidence supporting a finding of causation, will grant
summary judgment to defendant on those two cases.
II. Motion for Summary Judgment
Much of defendant’s motion for summary judgment overlaps with its Daubert
challenge. For the reasons explained above, certain plaintiffs have failed to put forth
sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find non-occupational exposure
was a substantial contributing factor of plaintiffs’ injuries. Accordingly, the court will
grant summary judgment to defendant Weyerhaeuser against plaintiffs Masephol, Prust,
Seehafer, Heckel and Treutel.
For the other plaintiffs, the court finds that plaintiffs have put forth sufficient
evidence, largely based on Parker’s and Anderson’s opinion testimony, for a reasonable
jury to conclude that non-occupational asbestos exposure was a substantial contributor to
their respective injuries.

See Physicians Plus Ins. Corp., 2001 WI App 148, at ¶ 59

(explaining that causation is a “question of fact that may be decided as a matter of law

54

only when reasonable factfinders could not differ on the issue”) (quoting Wagner v.
DHSS, 163 Wis. 2d 318, 328, 471 N.W.2d 269 (Ct. App. 1991)).
These

three,

Weyerhaeuser:

remaining

plaintiffs

assert

four

claims

against

defendant

(1) intentional public nuisance; (2) negligent public nuisance; (3)

intentional private nuisance; (4) negligent private nuisance. It is to claims against these
plaintiffs the court now turns.
In Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, 2005 WI 8, 277 Wis. 2d 635, 691
N.W.2d 658, the Wisconsin Supreme Court set forth in great detail the various legal
theories that fall within a “nuisance claim,” as well as the required elements to proceed
on such a claim.

“The term ‘nuisance’ generally refers to the invasion of either an

interest in the use and enjoyment of land or a common public right.”

Id. at ¶ 24.

Accordingly, “[a] nuisance is nothing more than a particular type of harm suffered;
liability depends upon the existence of underlying tortious acts that cause[d] the harm.”
Id. at ¶ 25; see also Physicians Plus Ins. Corp. v. Midwest Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 WI 80, ¶ 22
n.18, 254 Wis. 2d 77, 646 N.W.2d 777 (“[T]he injurious consequences resulting from
the nuisance, rather than acts [that] produce the nuisance, constitute the cause of
action.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
The first step in analyzing any nuisance claim, therefore, is to identify the
particular harm suffered; in other words, the interference with a private interest in the
use and enjoyment of land or with a public right. Milwaukee Metro., 2005 WI 8, at ¶ 26.
Here, plaintiffs allege both private and public nuisance claims. “The essence of a private
nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of land.” Id. at ¶ 27 (quoting W.
55

Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 87 at 619 (5th Ed. Lawyers Ed. 1984)).
Such a claim may be brought by “those who have property rights and privileges in respect
to the use and enjoyment of the land affected.” Milwaukee Metro., 2005 WI 8, at ¶ 27
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). A public nuisance, on the other hand, is
a “condition or activity which substantially or unduly interferes with the use of a public
place or with the activities of an entire community.” Id. at ¶ 28 (quoting Physicians Plus,
2002 WI 80, at ¶ 21).
A nuisance claim may also be premised on intentional or negligent conduct. Id. at
¶ 33. Here, plaintiffs again claim both. In intentional nuisance claims, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court explained in Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District, “the nuisance is
created by the defendant.” Id. at ¶ 33. For example “a tannery or a slaughter-house in
the midst of a residential area” may be a nuisance, although liability “does not rest on the
degree of care used [by the defendant] . . . but on the degree of danger existing even with
the best of care.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In contrast, a
nuisance claim premised on negligent conduct involves “acts or conduct of the defendant
[that] do not necessarily cause damage to others.” Id. at ¶ 34. In negligence nuisance
cases, “liability is predicated upon the defendant’s failure to remove the harmful
condition after he has notice of its existence.” Id.
A. Public Nuisance Claims
Defendant’s arguments in support of its motion for summary judgment on
plaintiffs’ public nuisance claims largely overlap with its arguments to strike plaintiffs’
experts testimony as unreliable.

Specifically, defendant argues that plaintiffs lack
56

sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find: (1) a public nuisance exists - in other words, that the surrounding community was contaminated by asbestos; and (2)
the public nuisance was a substantial contributing factor in causing plaintiffs’ injuries.
With respect to the first argument, defendant specifically takes issue with the lack of
evidence demonstrating that the anecdotal complaints of “dust” contained asbestos and
lack of modeling or other attempts by plaintiffs to quantify the level of emissions. As for
the second basis, defendant principally argues that plaintiffs cannot prove causation
because plaintiffs lack evidence of non-occupational exposures. The court has already
considered and rejected these arguments as part of its decision on the Daubert motion
with respect to the three remaining plaintiffs.
Defendant also seeks summary judgment on the intentional nuisance claims -both public and private -- on the basis that plaintiffs lack evidence that Weyerhaeuser
had “knowledge that the condition or activity is causing harm to another’s interest.”
(Def.’s Opening Br. (‘286 dkt. #252) 14 (quoting Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 2005
WI 8, at ¶ 38).) As the Wisconsin Supreme Court explained in a stray voltage case, “it
was not sufficient that the defendant knew some stray voltage invaded the farmer’s land;
rather, proof was required that the defendant knew that unreasonable levels of the stray
voltage was causing harm to the plaintiff’s cows.” Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 2005
WI 8, at ¶ 38, (discussing Vogel v. Grant-Lafayette Elec. Co-op., 201 Wis. 2d 416, 548
N.W.2d 829 (1996)).
While plaintiffs give short shrift to this argument, there is evidence in the record
to find that defendant was aware of asbestos emissions into the community. Of course,
57

at trial, plaintiffs will have to prove that defendant was also aware that the level of nonoccupational asbestos emissions constituted a separate danger. Still, the court will deny
defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ intentional nuisance
claims, finding plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether Weyerhaeuser knew that it was releasing dangerous amounts
of asbestos into the community.19
B. Private Nuisance Claims
Plaintiffs’ private nuisance claims, which concern the use and enjoyment of land,
prove an ill fit for at least two, related reasons. First, defendant argues that plaintiffs’
claims fail because (1) “[o]nly individuals with current property rights or a possessory
interest in land can state a claim for private nuisance,” and (2) plaintiffs have failed to
put forth any evidence of a current interest. (Def.’s Opening Br. (‘286 dkt. #252) 16.)
In the face of defendant’s well-crafted argument that the possessory interest must be
“current,” as opposed to in existence when the nuisance allegedly occurred, plaintiffs fail
to offer any response. Accordingly, plaintiffs have waived any opposition. See Bonte v.
U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461, 466 (7th Cir. 2010) (“Failure to respond to an argument
. . . results in waiver.”). Indeed, the portion of plaintiffs’ opposition brief concerning the
private nuisance claim is not specific to any individual plaintiff. Absent individual proof

For this same reason, the court will also deny defendant’s motion with respect to plaintiffs’
punitive damages claim, though defendant remains free to renew this argument in a motion in
limine or for directed verdict if the evidence presented during the damages phase is not sufficient
for the jury to find defendant acted with an “intentional disregard of the rights of” plaintiffs. Wis.
Stat. § 895.043.
19

58

of a possessory interest, it is difficult to understand how plaintiffs could rebut this
argument.
The concern about the lack of evidence of a possessory interest is connected to
defendant’s second argument -- that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of
limitations. Regardless of whether the three-year statute of limitations for intentional
and negligent tort claims apply under Wis. Stat. § 893.54 and 893.57, or the six-year
statute of limitations for damage of property under Wis. Stat. § 893.52 applies,
defendant argues that the claims have long tolled, since Weyerhaeuser stopped using
asbestos in 1978.
In response, plaintiffs contend that the discovery rule applies, at least under
§ 893.52, and their claims accrue only when “the plaintiff objectively knows or with
reasonable exercise of care should have known, the cause of the injury and the
defendant’s part in that cause.” (Pls.’ Opp’n (‘286 dkt. #364) 19-20 (quoting Allen v.
Wis. Public Serv. Corp., 2005 WI App 40, ¶ 8, 279 Wis. 2d 488, 694 N.W.2d 420).) As
such, plaintiffs argue that their claims are timely under the discovery rule.

In other

words, they did not know that there was any impact on their use and enjoyment of land.
(Pls.’ Opp’n (‘286 dkt. #364) 20-21 (“[T]he contamination of Plaintiff’s property would
not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary care.”).)
While the court agrees the discovery rule is available for private nuisance claims, it
would only apply when the plaintiff is aware of an injury, but does not know its cause.
In the stray voltage context, for example, the plaintiff farmers knew that their cows were
suffering; they simply did not know the source of their injury. See, e.g., Allen, 2005 WI
59

App 40, ¶ 3,; Gumz v. N. States Power Co., 2006 WI App 165, ¶ 3, 295 Wis. 2d 600, 721
N.W.2d 515.

Here, however, plaintiffs are not asserting that the asbestos dust they

experienced during the relevant period gave rise to an injury preventing their enjoyment
during the ownership of the property, unless that injury is the dust itself damaging
window sills and soiling laundry.

As such, defendant’s statute of limitations defense

highlights again the ill fit of this claim to plaintiff’s injuries: the claimed injury is not the
enjoyment of plaintiff’s land. Because plaintiffs lacked a possessory interest in any event,
the court need not decide whether the private nuisance claim is also barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.
Accordingly, the court will grant summary judgment to defendant on plaintiffs’
claims of a private nuisance, and plaintiffs Boyer, Pecher and Sydow will be allowed to
proceed to trial on a public nuisance claim against Weyerhaeuser.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff Sydow’s second motion for leave to file a third amended complaint
(‘219 dkt. #440) is GRANTED. The amended complaint naming the current
special administrator is due on or before March 3, 2016.
2) Defendant Weyerhaeuser’s motions for summary judgment are GRANTED
with respect to plaintiffs Heckel (‘459 dkt. #143), Jacobs (‘899 dkt. #134),
Masephol (‘186 dkt. #221), Prust (‘143 dkt. #196), and Seehafer (‘161 dkt.
#203).
3) Defendant Weyerhaeuser’s motions for summary judgment are GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART with respect to plaintiffs Boyer (‘286 dkt.
#221), Pecher (‘147 dkt. #198), and Sydow (‘219 dkt. #236) as set forth
above.

60

4) Defendant Weyerhaeuser’s motions to strike plaintiffs’ experts are GRANTED
with respect to plaintiffs Heckel (‘459 dkt. #187), Jacobs (‘899 dkt. #164),
Masephol (‘186 dkt. #300), Prust (‘143 dkt. #233), and Seehafer (‘161 dkt.
#268).
5) Defendant Weyerhaeuser’s motions to exclude plaintiffs’ proffered lung cancer
testimony are GRANTED with respect to plaintiffs Heckel (‘459 dkt. #258)
and Prust (‘143 dkt. #305).
6) Defendant Weyerhaeuser’s motions to strike plaintiffs’ experts are DENIED
with respect to plaintiffs Boyer (‘286 dkt. #299), Pecher (‘147 dkt. #239),
and Sydow (‘219 dkt. #321).
7) Defendant Weyerhaeuser’s motions to strike portions of Anderson’s testimony
are GRANTED with respect to all plaintiffs, Boyer (‘286 dkt. #302), Heckel
(‘459 dkt. #219), Jacobs (‘899 dkt. #199), Masephol (‘186 dkt. #303),
Pecher (‘147 dkt. #268), Prust (‘143 dkt. #264), Seehafer (‘161 dkt. #271),
and Sydow (‘219 dkt. #326).
8) Defendant Weyerhaeuser’s motions to strike plaintiffs’ evidence as
inadmissible hearsay are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as
described in the opinion for all plaintiffs, Boyer (‘286 dkt. #399), Heckel
(‘459 dkt. #291), Jacobs (‘899 dkt. #256), Masephol (‘186 dkt. #406),
Pecher (‘147 dkt. #356), Prust (‘143 dkt. #339), Seehafer (‘161 dkt. #328),
and Sydow (‘219 dkt. #412).
9) Plaintiffs’ motion to deem responses admitted are DENIED for all plaintiffs,
Boyer (‘286 dkt. #420), Heckel (‘459 dkt. #304), Jacobs (‘899 dkt. #262),
Masephol (‘186 dkt. #428), Pecher (‘147 dkt. #378), Prust (‘143 dkt. #350),
Seehafer (‘161 dkt. #334), and Sydow (‘219 dkt. #434).
10)
Plaintiffs’ motions to take deposition of David B. Allen are DENIED AS
MOOT for plaintiffs Heckel (‘459 dkt. #301), Jacobs (‘899 dkt. #259),
Masephol (‘186 dkt. #425), Prust (‘143 dkt. #347) and Seehafer (‘161 dkt.
#331), and GRANTED for plaintiffs Boyer (‘286 dkt. #417), Pecher (‘147
dkt. #375), and Sydow (‘219 dkt. #431).
11)
Defendant Weyerhaeuser’s motions for a protective order barring plaintiffs’
Ehlke deposition are DENIED for plaintiffs, Boyer (‘286 dkt. #309), Pecher
(‘147 dkt. #275), and Sydow (‘219 dkt. #333), and DENIED AS MOOT for
plaintiffs Heckel (‘459 dkt. #222), Jacobs (‘899 dkt. #200), Masephol (‘186
dkt. #312), Prust (‘143 dkt. #270), and Seehafer (‘161 dkt. #272).

61

12)
Plaintiffs’ motions to file a sur-reply in opposition to defendant’s motion
for a protective order are DENIED AS MOOT for all plaintiffs, Boyer (‘286
dkt. #358), Heckel (‘459 dkt. #249), Jacobs (‘899 dkt. #226), Masephol
(‘186 dkt. #363), Pecher (‘147 dkt. #315), Prust (‘143 dkt. #298), Seehafer
(‘161 dkt. #298), and Sydow (‘219 dkt. #372).
13)
The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in defendant
Weyerhaeuser’s favor in Heckel (13-cv-459), Jacobs (12-cv-899), Masephol
(14-cv-186), Prust (14-cv-143), and Seehafer (14-cv-161).
14)
The Clerk of Court is directed to close Masephol (14-cv-186), Prust (14-cv143), and Seehafer (14-cv-161).
15)
Plaintiffs Heckel (13-cv-459) and Jacobs (12-cv-899) may have until
February 29, 2016, to advise the court as to the status of their claims against
the other named defendants in their respective cases.
Entered this 19th day of February, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

62