Plaintiff, a career truck mechanic, claimed his mesothelioma was caused by working with various automotive products.  Several Defendants, alleged to have been product sellers, moved for summary judgment.  The Court held that plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff’s alleged mesothelioma was caused by his exposure to some of the products sold by some of the Defendants. The District Court found that certain Defendants had identified portions of the pleadings, depositions, and answers to interrogatories indicating an absence of a genuine issue of material fact.  The burden was then shifted to plaintiff to set forth specific facts showing there was a genuine issue for trial.  The Court found that plaintiff failed to present a forecast of evidence showing actual exposure to the alleged offending products asserted to be affiliated with certain Defendants. Consistent with this standard, the Court held that plaintiff was required to show more than a casual or minimum contact with the alleged offending products, and plaintiff needed to present evidence of exposure to the specific products on a regular basis, over some extended period of time, and in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.  The case was dismissed as to some of the Defendants because plaintiff failed to satisfy the “frequency, regularity and proximity” test set forth in Lorhmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F. 2d 1156, 1162-63 (4th Cir. 1986).

The outcome of a particular case cannot be predicated upon a lawyer's or law firm's past results.