I have said on various occasions (during admittedly nerdy conversations with colleagues) that this expert opinion or that piece of evidence surely constitutes no evidence as a matter of law and that no court could possibly see it differently. But we all know that it is never quite that easy and never that clear cut. The Beaumont Court of Appeals’ recent 2-1 opinion in Pink v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company illustrates this point.
In Pink, the panel reversed a no evidence summary judgment rendered for Goodyear. That reversal was based, in part, on the court’s determination that the following expert testimony presented by Pink constituted some evidence of causation:
I was Veryl Pink’s treating oncologist. Mr. Pink was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma, which was confirmed by biopsy. The ultimate cause of Mr. Pink’s death was the progression of the disease.
Based upon reasonable medical probability it is my opinion that the cause of Mr. Pink’s renal cell carcinoma was exposure to chemicals, more than likely benzene. In rendering this opinion I have reviewed Mr. Pink’s medical records, the deposition testimony of Mr. Pink and three of his coworkers, the deposition of Dr. Radelat, and scientific literature.