Shilling v. Mobile Analytical Services, Inc., 91-2245

• Citation: 65 Ohio St.3d 252,602 N.E.2d 1154
• Decision Date: 16 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-2245,91-2245
• Parties: SHILLING et al., Appellants, v. MOBILE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC., d.b.a. MASI Environmental Laboratories, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio

Page 252

65 Ohio St.3d 252

602 N.E.2d 1154

SHILLING et al., Appellants, v. MOBILE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC., d.b.a. MASI Environmental Laboratories, Appellee.

No. 91-2245.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Sept. 16, 1992.

Decided Dec. 16, 1992.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

A witness who is not a physician, but who qualifies as an expert under Evid.R. 702, may give evidence that would be relevant to diagnosis of a medical condition if the testimony is within the expertise of the witness. (Evid.R 702 and Darnell v. Eastman [1970], 23 Ohio St.2d 13, 52 O.O.2d 76, 261 N.E.2d 114, construed and applied.)

Appellants John R. Shilling and his family allege various personal injuries caused by drinking water contaminated with gasoline during the period from October 1985 to December 1987. A physician, engaged by the defendant, diagnosed John Shilling's condition as multiple sclerosis. Plaintiffs sued appellee Mobile Analytical Services, Inc. ("MASI"), alleging negligence in testing the water, in failing to warn them that the test was not adequate for detection of gasoline, and in failing to refer them to a laboratory that could perform such a test, and breach of contract.

In the complaint the following facts were alleged. Shilling suspected that his well water might be contaminated with gasoline or diesel fuel. On October 24, 1985, MASI tested a sample of water that Shilling had submitted. The results did not indicate the presence of gasoline or diesel fuel in the water. Shilling and his family continued to drink the water. Appellant again had MASI test the water in October 1987, and again the results were negative. In December 1987 Shilling learned that tests by another laboratory indicated the presence of gasoline in the water.

MASI moved for summary judgment asserting, among other things, that appellants had not shown by way of expert testimony that the consumption of contaminated water was the direct and proximate cause of their alleged injuries. In opposing the motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs relied on the affidavit of Raymond Singer, Ph.D.

Dr. Singer is a neurotoxicologist/psychologist. He concluded, on the basis of his examination, a review of scientific literature and the available medical records, that the appellants were suffering effects as a result of drinking contaminated water. Singer averred that John Shilling suffered from brain damage, and that toxicity from the contaminated water was a significant contributing factor. Mrs. Shilling, in Singer's opinion, suffered from brain dysfunction caused by the contaminated water. In addition, Singer testified that one of the children likely suffered some effect from the exposure to toxins.

The trial court held that because any opinion on the cause of physical problems is a medical diagnosis, an expert who renders such an opinion must be a medical doctor. As Dr. Singer is not a medical doctor, but a Ph.D., the trial court refused to consider his affidavit. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court.

Grieser, Schafer, Blumenstiel & Slane Co., L.P.A., C. Richard Grieser and J.B. Blumenstiel, Columbus, for appellants.

Bailey & Slavin, Richard W. Bailey and Richard C. Slavin, Worthington, for appellee.

Clark, Perdue & Roberts Co., L.P.A., and Dale K. Perdue, Columbus, urging reversal on behalf of amicus curiae Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, William M. Todd and Randall W. Knutti, urging affirmance on behalf of amicus curiae Ohio State Medical Ass'n.

HERBERT R. BROWN, Justice.

The issue presented is whether an expert witness who is not a physician, but a Ph.D. who specializes in neurotoxicology, is qualified to render an opinion that the ingestion of gasoline caused injury to the brain and nervous system. For the reasons that follow, we hold that such an expert can be so qualified.

Expert testimony is governed by Evid.R. 702: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." We must therefore determine the extent to which Dr. Singer is qualified to render an opinion on the cause of the Shillings' disabilities based on his "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or...