Schultz v. Akzo Nobel Paints, LLC

In action alleging that benzene in defendant’s paint caused plaintiff to develop acute myeloid leukemia (AML), Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment after finding that opinion from plaintiff’s expert, that benzene at certain exposure level was generally known to cause AML and was substantial factor in development of plaintiff’s disease, was unreliable. Plaintiff’s expert used identical methodology as defendant’s expert, and fact that plaintiff’s expert came up with different conclusion regarding minimum level of benzene exposure that was necessary to cause AML is matter for resolution by jury, as opposed to Dist. Ct. Moreover, fact that plaintiff’s expert did not rule out plaintiff’s weight or smoking history as causes for AML did not render said opinion unreliable since plaintiff was not required under Wisc. law to demonstrate that benzene exposure was sole cause of his disease so long as he showed that benzene either contributed substantially to disease’s development or significantly increased plaintiff’s risk of developing AML.