The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed and remanded a lower court’s decision in favor of the defendant — Soo Line Railroad Company — after determining the lower court erred when it presented the testimony of a physician before the jury who was not listed as an expert witness.
The plaintiff in this case, Shirley A. Ralls, brought the wrongful death suit against the railroad company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Ralls argues the company exposed her husband, who worked for them, to carcinogens that caused his lung cancer.
Ralls’s appeal follows a jury trial in Livingston County and the denial of her motion for a new trial.
Ralls’s husband was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2013 and died from the disease two years later, according to the court.
“Mr. Ralls smoked two to three packs of cigarettes a day for 50 years,” according to the court. “He also worked for Soo Line Railroad Company from 1970 to 1996 and held various roles with Soo Line, including as a trackman, machine operator and foreman. In 2018, Mr. Ralls’s wife, Shirley Ralls, filed a wrongful death negligence action against Soo Line under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Ralls alleged that Mr. Ralls was exposed to known carcinogens during his work for Soo Line, specifically diesel exhaust and silica and that exposure caused or contributed to his cancer.”
While both parties agreed at trial that Mr. Ralls’s smoking contributed to his cancer, the trial itself focused on whether the carcinogens he was exposed to at work also contributed.
The appeal focused on the testimony of Ralls’s treating physician.
On appeal, Mrs. Ralls brought three points before the court: “First, Ralls argues that the trial court erred in permitting Mr. Ralls’s treating physician to offer a causation opinion because the treating physician was not disclosed as an expert. Second, Ralls argues the trial court erred in permitting the treating physician to offer opinions at trial that differed from his opinions offered during discovery. Finally, Ralls argues that the trial court erred in finding that the treating physician satisfied Missouri’s expert witness statute, section 490.065.”
Neither Ralls nor Soo Line identified the physician as a retained or non-retained expert, though he was deposed by Soo Line before the trial.
“The treating physician was first deposed in April 2023, approximately 3 months prior to trial at the behest of Soo Line. At that deposition, the treating physician had access only to his initial consultation note. That consultation note did not include Mr. Ralls’s job history or smoking history, but it did state that Mr. Ralls had COPD, which evidenced heavy smoking,” according to the court. “Rather than asking Treating Physician about the course of treatment, Soo Line asked him about the cause of Mr. Ralls’s cancer. The Treating Physician was asked by Soo Line to assume Mr. Ralls had smoked for 50 years and worked as a trackman for a railroad. Based on these additional facts, the Treating Physician initially testified that Mr. Ralls’s lung cancer was caused by his smoking.”
However, when the physician was questioned by Ralls’s attorney, he said he “can’t render a correct opinion,” because he did not have all the data and ultimately expressed no opinion at all, according to the court.
Ralls made a motion to the trial court to reconsider its denial of her motion to exclude treating physician’s causation testimony but the motion was denied. Soo Line used the physician’s testimony in its closing argument and the jury decided in the railroad’s favor.
The appeal follows the denial of Ralls motion for a new trial based on the physician’s testimony. The appeals court reversed and remanded the decision finding in her favor.
“When reviewing the totality of the circumstances, we find that Ralls was unfairly surprised and prejudiced by the treating physician’s testimony at trial,” according to the appellate court in its opinion authored by Judge W. Douglas Thomson. “Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the treating physician to testify as to causation. Points I and II are granted. Because of our holdings in Points I and II, we need not address Ralls’s remaining point on appeal.”
The case is: Shirley A. Ralls et al. V. Soo Line Railroad, Case No. WD86617.