Date: 04-04-2023

Case Style:

Shawn Elisie Matthis v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 2:17-CV-3550

Judge: Sarah S. Vance

Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Orleans County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney: David W. Leefe, Adrianne Katrine Jakola, Charles B. Wilmore, Devin C. Reid, Kristopher Scott Ritter. Lance Christina Bullock, Martin L. Roth, Nena M. Eddy, Russell Keith Jarett

Description: New Orleans, Louisiana personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants on negligence theories.


This case arises from plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Plaintiff alleges that she was exposed to crude oil and dispersants from her work as an onshore cleanup worker.[6] Plaintiff represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health problems: acute asthma, shortness of breath, exacerbation of pre-existing asthma, cough, allergic rhinitis, pharyngitis, upper respiratory infection, laryngitis, acute bronchitis, nasal congestion, sore throat, acute sinusitis, decreased sense of smell, facial pain, sinus pain, nosebleed, throat irritation, gastritis, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain/cramps, diarrhea, dermatitis, cellulitis, boils, crusting, dryness/flaking, inflammation, redness, swelling, itching, lesions, peeling, scaling, welts,
headache, migraine, dizziness, anxiety, gait problems, speech difficulty, decreased vision, eye pain, blurred vision, diplopia, acute conjunctivitis, joint swelling, and fainting.[7]

Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. Her case was severed from the MDL as one of the “B3” cases for plaintiffs who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement.[8] Plaintiff opted out of the settlement.[9] After plaintiff's case was severed, it was reallocated to this Court. Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against the defendants as a result of the oil spill and its cleanup.[10]

To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and dispersants can cause the symptoms plaintiff alleges in her complaint, she offers the testimony of Dr. Jerald Cook, an occupational and environmental physician.[11] Dr. Cook is plaintiff's sole expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his June 21, 2022 report, Dr. Cook utilizes a “general causation approach to determine if some of the frequently reported health complaints are indeed from the result of exposures sustained in performing [oil spill] cleanup work.”[12]

The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful.[13]Defendants also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's general causation opinion is excluded, plaintiff is unable to carry her burden on causation.[14] Plaintiff opposes both motions.[15] Plaintiff contends that defendants' failure to record quantitative exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation, and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction.[16] Defendants oppose plaintiff's motion.[17]...

Outcome: Defendant's motion for summary judgement granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: