Cripe v. Henkel Corp.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in action alleging that plaintiff sustained neurological and psychological damages arising out of his exposure to fumes from glue manufactured by defendant. Basis for ruling was finding that plaintiff had failed to identify expert witness who could establish that said exposure had caused plaintiff’s injuries. Dist. Ct. properly rejected plaintiff’s claim that six of his treating physicians were experts who could establish causation issue, since: (1) plaintiff failed to disclose said physicians as experts as required under Rule 26(a)(2)(A); and (2) plaintiff failed to file required report that disclosed basis of physicians' opinions. Ct. further noted that evaluations generated by said physicians that provided only bare declaration that said glue caused plaintiff’s injuries were useless.