{"id":855,"date":"2025-02-19T10:01:11","date_gmt":"2025-02-19T15:01:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/?p=855"},"modified":"2025-03-18T15:45:08","modified_gmt":"2025-03-18T19:45:08","slug":"rhode-islands-first-asbestos-verdict-in-nearly-40-years","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/2025\/02\/19\/rhode-islands-first-asbestos-verdict-in-nearly-40-years\/","title":{"rendered":"Rhode Island\u2019s First Asbestos Verdict in Nearly 40 Years"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

For the first time in nearly 40 years, an asbestos case was tried to verdict in Rhode Island. This case, The Estate of Bonnie Bonito<\/em>, resulted in a full defense verdict!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I.\u00a0 Factual Background<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs alleged that Bonnie Bonito died of mesothelioma caused by her exposure to asbestos from laundering her ex-husband\u2019s work clothes for over 20 years.[1]<\/a> Mr. Bonito was self-employed and owned his own construction company which built and remodeled residential homes.[2]<\/a> During this employment, Mr. Bonito allegedly performed hands-on work including: building new forms, framing, installing petitions and siding, installing drywall, applying joint compound, insulation, wiring and installing septic and sewer pipes.[3]<\/a> Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Bonito worked with defendants\u2019 asbestos-containing products. Mrs. Bonito was then allegedly exposed to that when she laundered Mr. Bonito\u2019s clothing.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plaintiffs asserted claims of negligence, design defect, failure to warn, breach of warranty and conspiracy.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

II.\u00a0 Expert Issues<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Defendants moved to exclude two of Plaintiffs\u2019 experts, Richard L. Kradin, M.D. and Michael J. Ellenbecker, Sc. D. [6]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A. Richard L. Kradin, MD<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Kradin is a pulmonologist and pathologist.[7]<\/a> Plaintiffs proffered Dr. Kradin to opine on the specific causes of Mrs. Bonito\u2019s disease.[8]<\/a> Specifically, he concluded the following: \u201cIt is my opinion to a reasonable degree of medical probability that [Mrs. Bonito\u2019s] malignant mesothelioma was caused by her cumulative para-occupational exposures to asbestos.\u201d[9]<\/a> Defendants sought to exclude Dr. Kradin and his opinion regarding causation.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court denied Defendants\u2019 motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Kradin.[11]<\/a> Using the two-pronged DiPetrillo<\/em> analysis used in Rhode Island,[12]<\/a> the Court held: (1) Dr. Kradin held the requisite qualifications to opine upon specific medical causation of mesothelioma; and (2) Dr. Kradin provided a sound scientific methodology in reaching his conclusion.[13]<\/a> Defendants had argued that Dr. Kradin\u2019s opinion that \u201call\u201d asbestos exposures above a background level causes mesothelioma is not scientifically supported because it cannot be tested to determine the \u201cfrequency, regularity, and proximity\u201d of Mrs. Bonito\u2019s asbestos exposures.[14]<\/a> The Court rejected this argument, and held that Defendants misread the holding of Sweredoski<\/em>.[15]<\/a> Specifically, the Court held that the \u201cfrequency, regularity, and proximity\u201d standard outlined in Sweredoski<\/em> is separate and distinct from the DiPetrillo<\/em> analysis that controls whether an expert\u2019s testimony will be admitted at trial. Rather, the Sweredoski<\/em> \u201cfrequency, regularity, and proximity\u201d standard establishes plaintiff\u2019s ultimate burden to prove liability in an asbestos context, i.e., that plaintiff was frequently or regularly in proximity to a defendant\u2019s asbestos-containing product.[16]<\/a> It does not, according to the Court, impose an additional requirement on the DiPetrillo<\/em> analysis.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

B. Michael J. Ellenbecker, Sc.D<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Ellenbecker is an industrial hygienist.[18]<\/a> Plaintiffs proffered Dr. Ellenbecker to give testimony on the \u201caerosol properties of asbestos fibers\u201d and \u201cthe proper industrial hygiene practices necessary to protect workers and family members from the dangers of asbestos fiber inhalation.\u201d[19]<\/a> Defendants filed two motions to exclude: (1) to exclude his opinion regarding defendants\u2019 products increasing Mrs. Bonito\u2019s risk of developing mesothelioma, and (2) to exclude his opinions on the warnings associated with those products.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court denied Defendants\u2019 motion to exclude Dr. Ellenbecker\u2019s testimony as it pertains to risk.[21]<\/a> The Court held that Dr. Ellenbecker held the requisite qualifications expected of the Court.[22]<\/a> The Court further held: \u201cDr. Ellenbecker\u2019s qualifications, his reliance on the scientifically sound \u2018each and every exposure theory,\u2019 and his consideration of scientific literature to support his expected testimony, renders his opinion as it applies to Mrs. Bonito\u2019s increased risk scientifically reliable.\u201d [23]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants\u2019 motion to exclude Dr. Ellenbecker\u2019s testimony as it relates to warnings.[24]<\/a> Defendants argued that Dr. Ellenbecker was not qualified to opine about the warning labels located on their products.[25]<\/a> The Court agreed hat because Dr. Ellenbecker \u201cis not an expert on the design of warnings,\u201d his opinions \u201cregarding the adequacy of the design of warnings on [defendant\u2019s] products, or lack thereof, ought to be excluded.\u201d[26]<\/a> The Court held that Dr. Ellenbecker was qualified, as an industrial hygienist, to \u201copine on the amount of asbestos released from products similar to the Defendants\u2019 as described in scientific literature\u2014which renders his expected testimony scientifically sound\u2014and how warnings could alert a worker to the dangers of such asbestos created.\u201d[27]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

III. Trial<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Trial commenced against the sole remaining Defendant, Union Carbide Corporation.[28]<\/a> After nine days of trial and nearly two days of deliberations, the Providence Superior Court jury returned a defense verdict on November 21, 2024.[29]<\/a> The jury found that Union Carbide\u2019s products were not defectively designed and that the company did not fail to warn about the potential hazards of asbestos.[30]<\/a> The trial was presided over by Justice Richard Licht.[31]<\/a> This verdict is significant as it is the first asbestos case tried to verdict in Rhode Island in nearly 40 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Tenth Amended Complaint at 1, Day v. 3M Co. Inc., No. PC-2018-5044 (R.I. Super. 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> [5] See<\/em> generally<\/em> Tenth Amended Complaint, Day v. 3M Co. Inc., No. PC-2018-5044 (R.I. Super. 2016).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> [6] Day v. 3M Co. Inc.<\/em>, No. PC-2018-5044, 2024 WL 4521279, at *1 (R.I.Super. Oct. 11, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> [7] Id. <\/em>at *2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> [8] Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> [9] Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> [10] Id. <\/em>at *1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> [11] Id. <\/em>at *12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> [12] The two-prong DiPetrillo<\/em> analysis, as established by the Rhode Island Supreme Court, is used to determine the admissibility of expert testimony. The analysis consists of the following two prongs: \u201c(1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine the fact in issue. This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether the reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the fact in issue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DiPetrillo v. Dow Chem. Co.<\/em>, 729 A.2d 677, 687 (R.I. 1999).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> Day v. 3M Co. Inc.<\/em>, No. PC-2018-5044, 2024 WL 4521279, at *4-5 (R.I.Super. Oct. 11, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> [14] Id.<\/em> at *5. See also Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval, Inc.<\/em>, C.A. No. PC2011-1544, 2013 WL 3010419, at *5 (R.I. Super. Ct. June 13, 2013) (Gibney, J.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Day v. 3M Co. Inc.<\/em>, No. PC-2018-5044, 2024 WL 4521279, at *5 (R.I.Super. Oct. 11, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rhode Island applies the \u201cfrequency, regularity, proximity\u201d test as the proper causation standard for asbestos cases. To satisfy the \u201cfrequency, regularity, proximity\u201d test, plaintiffs must present evidence showing \u201c(1) exposure to a particular product; (2) on a regular basis; (3) over an extended period of time; and (4) in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.\u201d
Sweredoski v. Alfa Laval, Inc.<\/em>, No. PC 2011-1544, 2013 WL 3010419, at *5 (R.I.Super. June 13, 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Day v. 3M Co. Inc.<\/em>, No. PC-2018-5044, 2024 WL 4521279, at *5 (R.I.Super. Oct. 11, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at *9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a> Jamie L. Day, et al. v. 3M Co., Inc., et al.<\/em>; 2024 LexisNexis Jury Verdicts & Settlements 293, PC-2018-5044 (Nov. 21, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> [30] Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> [31] Id.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For the first time in nearly 40 years, an asbestos case was tried to verdict in Rhode Island. This case, The Estate of Bonnie Bonito, resulted in a full defense verdict! I.\u00a0 Factual Background Plaintiffs alleged that Bonnie Bonito died of mesothelioma…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":856,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":true,"footnotes":""},"categories":[284],"tags":[285,330],"class_list":["post-855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-asbestos-litigation","tag-asbestos-litigation","tag-mesothelioma"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=855"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/855\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/856"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/its-your-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}