IN THE COURT OF COMMONPLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
`PENNSYLVANIA
`
`MARYK. STACK,Executrix of the Estate of |
`ROBERTT. STACK, deceased, and MARY
`Kk. STACK,in her ownright,
`
`CIVIL DIVISION - ASBESTOS
`
`NO. G.D. 12-020620
`
`t!1'it!!1fii''i1i'i1iiiiiii!1i
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SAFETY FIRST INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`in its own right and as successor-in-interest
`to Safety First Supply,Inc., et. al.
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
`DEFENDANT CRANE’S MOTION IN
`LIMINE TO PRECLUE EVIDENCE
`| REGARDING DECEDENT’S FUTURE
`| LOST INCOME AND TESTIMONY OF
`| H.M MCFARLING, M.D.
`
`FILED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF
`
`Counsel of Record for This Party:
`
`Janice M. Savinis, Esquire
`Pa. LD. #51943
`
`John R. Kane, Esquire
`Pa. LD. #83771
`
`Michael J. Gallucci, Esquire
`Pa I.D. #92859
`
`SAVINIS & KANE,L.L.C.
`Suite 3626, Gulf Tower
`707 Grant Street
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`(412) 227-6556
`
`

`

`IN THE COURT OF COMMONPLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
`PENNSYLVANIA
`
`MARYK.STACK,Executrix ofthe Estateof|
`ROBERT T. STACK, deceased, and MARY | CIVIL DIVISION - ASBESTOS
`K. STACK,in her ownright,
`NO. GD. 12-020620
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`SAFETY FIRST INDUSTRIES,INC.,
`in its own right and as successor-in-interest
`to Safety First Supply, Inc., et. al.
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CRANE’S MOTION
`IN LIMINE TO PRECLUE EVIDENCE REGARDING DECEDENT’S
`FUTURE LOST INCOME AND TESTIMONY OF H.M MCFARLING,M.D.
`
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`This case involves claimsarising out of the pain and suffering and death of R.
`
`Timothy Stack resulting from his exposure to asbestos when he worked at Vulcan
`
`Detinning in the early 1970’s. While there, he was exposed to asbestos from the products
`
`of Defendant Crane Company (“Crane”), which caused his death from mesothelioma 40
`
`yearslater.
`
`Mr. Stack died on July 30, 2012, when he was60 years old. At the time, he was
`
`serving as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Piedmont Healthcare, Atlanta’s
`
`premier healthcare and hospital system. His total earnings were well in excess of $1
`
`million a yearat the time.
`
`

`

`The evidenceat trial will establish that Mr. Stack had worked for Piedmontsince
`
`2001 undera series of several different contract extensions. The one that he was a party
`
`to at the time of his death ran for another five years, until Mr. Stack would have been 65
`
`years old. That contract operated under sequential two-year extensions. Crane Motion,
`
`Ex. A, 1.
`
`Plaintiff has retained an expert economist, Dr. James D. Rodgers, to present to the
`
`jury the expected future lost wages of Mr. Stack. That testimony is predicated on the
`
`expectation that Mr. Stack would have most likely worked until age 68 or 70. Plaintiff
`
`anticipates introducing evidenceat trial from at least three witnesses (Plaintiff Mary
`
`Stack and Drs. William Blincoe and H.M. McFarling) that Mr. Stack would have
`
`continued to work past age 65 had he not been struck down by mesothelioma. The
`
`evidence will establish a substantial probability that, had he lived, Mr. Stack would have
`
`workedat least to age 68 or 70, at the same kind of high-earning position that he had held
`
`for years. Based on Mr. Stack’s own expressions ofhis intent and future plans and based
`
`on his past conduct, all three of these witnesses will testify that Mr. Stack would have
`
`continued to work and generate incomeafter completion of the contract that was in effect
`
`at the time of his death.
`
`Mary Stack, as Tim Stack’s wife, knew of her husband’s intentions with respect to
`
`Piedmont and workin general. She knew his work ethic, his personality, his wants and
`
`desires with respect to not just his personallife, but also his professional life. Mary
`
`knows what Tim Stack’s intentions were with respect to Piedmont and with respect to
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`work in General. Mary answered Defendant’s questions on this issue in her discovery
`
`deposition, and will expand uponit attrial.
`
`Moreover, both Drs. Blincoe and McFarling werein a position to testify from the
`
`viewpoint of Piedmont Healthcare that Piedmont had every intention and desire to
`
`continueits relationship with Mr. Stack through another contract extension after Mr.
`
`Stack reached 65. Both of those doctors served on the boards of Piedmont Hospital and
`
`Piedmont Healthcare, and they have personal and direct knowledgeofthe actual plans
`
`and intentions of (1) Mr. Stack to continue working and (2) Piedmont’s fervent desire to
`
`have Mr. Stack continue working. They will testify, among other things, about the
`
`extraordinary vision and leadership that Mr. Stack brought to Piedmont Healthcare; that
`
`there was a tremendouslevel of respect for Mr. Stack’s work as President and CEO; and
`
`that there was a consequent desire on the part of Piedmont’s board and administration to
`
`continue its relationship with Mr. Stack past age 65.
`
`Indeed, Dr. Blincoe is on the Board of Directors at Piedmont and was on the
`
`Executive Compensation Committee at the hospital and wasintimately familiar with the
`
`business relationship between Piedmont and Mr. Stack, as well as the universal desire of
`
`the Board of Trustees of Piedmont to continue its relationship with Mr. Stack. Similarly,
`
`Dr. McFarling was a memberof the Board of Piedmont Healthcare from 2008 through
`
`the time of Mr. Stack’s death, as well as serving as Chiefof Staff at Piedmont Hospital.
`
`Drs. Blincoe and McFarling are as familiar as anyone associated with Piedmontabout the
`
`likely future relationship of Mr. Stack and Piedmont.
`
`

`

`Defendant arguesthat it is only through speculation and conjecture that the jury
`
`could conclude that Mr. Stack’s employment would continue after 2015. Defendant
`
`further argues that plaintiff has put forth no evidence that Mr. Stack would have
`
`continued to work at Piedmont Hospital. This is simply untrue.
`
`Since Mr. Stack is deceased, he cannottestify to his intentions. But these three
`
`witnesses can and will testify to his expressions of intent and his plans, and they can and
`
`will equally testify from their own personal knowledge as to Piedmont’s desire to
`
`continue its relationship with Mr. Stack. No one today could bein a better position to
`
`give testimony to the jury as to Mr. Stack’s expected work history beyong the existing
`
`contract and past age 65 than these three witnesses. Crane’s motion is without merit.
`
`I.
`
`Factual Predicate
`
`Considering Dr. Blincoe’s position on Piedmont’s Board of Directors, his
`
`professional relationship with Mr. Stack, his responsibility on the Executive
`
`Compensation Committee to ensure that Tim Stack is appropriately compensated as
`
`CEO of a not-for-profit health care organization, his testimony is properly based in fact.
`
`Dr. Blincoetestified that when Tim Stack wasfirst interviewed for the position of CEO,
`
`there was an intensive interview process. As a non-profit healthcare system, it was
`
`extremely important to do an investigation with due diligence as to what wasfair and
`
`appropriate compensation for the Chief Executive Officer, or their non-profit status
`
`could be jeopardized.
`
`Blincoe, M.D., William 8-17-15, (Pages 39:25 to 40:21)
`39
`A So at Piedmont Healthcare, we are very
`
`25
`
`-4.
`
`

`

`OANABWN
`
`40
`conscious and concerned andI believe sort of
`conservative. Andsoit -- whatever we are doing
`for CEO comp,wefelt better if we had more people
`weighing in saying, "Yeah,this is all reasonable
`and appropriate and not out of fair market, and
`does achieve the goals that you want to achieve
`but doesn't put you out of market or put you in a
`position where you would jeopardize your not-for-
`profit status."
`Q_
`So back to my question: Would this
`reasonablenessjustification, essentially, be
`provided to the IRS?
`A I'm not sure if we sentit to the IRS
`as much as wehadall this in documents, if and
`when wewereevercalled to produce why we were
`paying the CEO what we werepaying him.
`Q
`In your evaluation of reasonableness,
`did you compare Mr. Stack's compensation packages
`to CEO's of similarly-sized not-for-profit
`hospitals?
`A Absolutely. Absolutely.
`
`40
`Q Do you know whether they were
`4]
`local hospitals or other hospitals of similar size
`throughout the United States?
`A I think both.
`I mean, the list was
`long. The work towards that was exhausting.!
`
`1 2 3 4
`
`Aspart of this due diligence, the Board of Directors, even after hiring the CEO
`
`would haveat least yearly reviews of the CEO to determine how the CEO was
`
`performing with respect to the goals set for him. Dr. Blincotestified that Tim Stack’s
`
`bonus, as CEO, was based on whether he would (1) meet the goals that wereset, (2)
`
`would exceeded those goals by a certain percentage, or (3) hit a home run. Dr. Blincoe
`
`' Deposition of Dr. Blincoeis attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`testified in his deposition Tim Stack was a homerunhitter, and would alwayshit a home
`
`run on the goals that were given to him; that was simply the type of executive that he
`
`was. This evidence shows Piedmont’s interest to continue its relationship with Mr. Stack
`
`with another contract extension after the current term expires.”
`
`Blincoe, M.D., William 8-17-15, (Page 91:8 to 91:25)
`91
`Q__ Based on everything you know about
`8
`9 Tim Stack, based on everything that you know about
`10 Piedmont Healthcare, based on everything that you
`11 know about Piedmont Hospital, based upon the
`12 due diligence that was done with regard to
`13 Tim Stack, do you have an opinion as to whetheror
`14 not Tim Stack would have met, exceeded orhit a
`15 home run on the goals that would have beenset for
`16 him in the future for the rest of his contract?
`17
`MS. WATSON: Objection to form,
`18
`speculation.
`19
`MR. JONES: Objection.
`20.
`A Mostlikely hit a home run. I mean,
`21 Tim was a homerun hitter. So however they agreed
`22 upon, whetherit is a dollar amount or whether
`23.
`it's an explicit goal, I'm sure Tim would have
`24 exceeded and hit a home run.
`I mean,that's the
`25. kind of guy he was.
`
`With respect to how long Tim Stack would have stayed at Piedmont,
`
`Dr. Blincoe testified that Tim Stack and Piedmont would have been
`
`together until 2020, and if Mr. Stack chose to seek other employmentafter
`
`that time, his earning potential would have exceeded his earningsat
`
`Piedmont.
`
`? Defendant seeks to use Mr. Stack’s employmentcontract as a bar to future earnings as though oncehis
`employment contract expired, he would be unemployable or would have no desire to continue employment. All
`evidence is to the contrary. Plaintiff will put forth evidence that both Mr. Stack and Piedmont would have wanted to
`continue their relationship together.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`OmAOHBWDY
`
`Blincoe, M.D., William 8-17-15, (Page 92:1 to 92:20)
`92
`Q You had mentioned that Tim wanted to
`get Piedmont Healthcare to a specific point, and
`you hadsaid -- I think you said 2020 was the
`time line that you guys were talking about.
`If Tim had got Piedmont Healthcare to
`where he was happy with it and then he decided to
`take his work elsewhere and go do somethingelse,
`do you have an opinionasto his earning potential
`on the open market?
`MS. WATSON: Objection to form.
`10
`A Yeah, I think he probably could have
`11
`12 exceeded what Piedmont paid. So Piedmont -- we
`13 historically have and continue to be conservative,
`14 other not-for-profits, clearly their execs outpace
`15. what wepay our execs. Maybeitis not all about
`16 the money,but I'm sure with Tim's CV and the
`17 success he had, 1f he wanted to exceed what
`18 Piedmont was paying, they would have been lined
`19 up, they would have been lined up. I'm sure he
`20 had headhunters calling him all the time.
`
`Dr. H.M. McFarling, II], M.D. provides additional affirmative evidence and
`
`removes any uncertainty as to Mr. Stack’s continued employment with the hospital. Dr.
`
`McFarling stated in his Affidavit that:
`
`“Assuming that our targets would have been attained by 2020,at
`which time Mr. Stack would have been 68, I have no doubt, that he
`would have remained in a very active role with Piedmontafter 2020
`for as long as his health would have permitted.
`I base that opinion
`on my extensive work with Mr. Stack, his passion and enthusiasm
`for the work he did, and his expressed thoughts about his personal
`future and desire to continue working with and assisting Piedmont in
`the future. Whether he would have remained as CEO of Piedmont
`Healthcare after he was 68 or instead been a very active, nearly
`fulltime consultant who would have continued to bring his talents,
`vision, and execution skills to Piedmont, one cannot say with
`certainty. But I can say with certainty that in my opinion, Mr. Stack
`would have continued to serve and work with Piedmont Healthcare
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`in one of those two capacities well beyond the year 2020 had he not
`died prematurely.”?
`
`Finally, Mr. Stack’s wife Mary Stack testified in her deposition that Mr. Stack
`
`intended to work at Piedmontafter his current contract term expired, thus removing any
`
`doubt as to Mr. Stack’s future employment:
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`And in that vein, before your husband’s diagnosis, did he
`haveplans to retire? Did you guys have a plan on when he
`was going to retire?
`
`He — I think he would have worked forever. He had just
`signed a five-year — five-year contract with Piedmont, and
`then — but then he was hoping when that was over maybeto,
`you know, do that, you know,see if he could stay there; or
`he would probably have consulted just because he was too
`antsy to sit.
`I don’t think — it would have been hard for him
`to retire.
`
`MR. KANE: Yousaid I don’t think it would have been hard for
`him to retire.
`
`A.
`
`I mean I believe it would have been hard. That’s whatI
`mean, I think it really would have been hard for him toretire.
`He loved his work.*
`
`lil. Argument
`
`Defendant Crane’s motion is misplaced. As a matter of procedure, the Court has
`
`not yet heard the testimony of Dr. McFarling, Dr. Blincoe, or Mrs. Stack on the issue of
`
`Mr. Stack’s likely future work course. Instead, Crane relies primarily on the incomplete
`
`
`
`3 Affidavit of H.M. McFarling, II], M.D., attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`4 Deposition of Mary K. Stack, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`questioning that occurred during Defendants’ discovery depositions. But even there, as
`
`shown from the testimony referenced above, Crane’s motion cannot succeed.
`
`Crane admits that Mr. Stack was employed by Piedmont undera series of
`
`contracts and contract extensions, and Crane does not dispute lost wages under contract
`
`renewals up to June 30, 2015, three years after Mr. Stack’s death. Crane argues,
`
`however, that it is “speculative” whether Mr. Stack would have workedto age 65 or
`
`beyond. Crane’s argument flounders both on the law andthe facts. Factually, there is no
`
`evidence from any witness that would support Crane’s contention that Mr. Stack would
`
`not have worked to or past age 65. All of the evidenceis to the contrary, and that
`
`evidenceis the best and most direct evidence that could possibly bear on the issue before
`
`the jury since Mr. Stack himself is deceased.
`
`In its desperation to limit damagesin this case, Crane must rely on cases that cut
`
`against its contention. Crane states the black letter rule that damages cannot be based on
`
`“speculation,” but it cites no case that supports the notion that lost future earnings can be
`
`disregarded as “speculative” wherethere is affirmative evidenceasto (1) the fact that
`
`decedent lost incomeas a result of his premature demise, and (2) the amountofsuch lost
`
`earnings. The case Crane relies on most heavily is a non-precedential federal court
`
`decision of a federal magistrate, Hackett v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. CIV.A. 08-237,
`
`2009 WL 1636069. Hackett states the general Pensylvania rule that:
`
`Damagesare considered remote or speculative only if there is uncertainty
`concerning the identification of the existence of damages rather than the
`ability to precisely calculate the amount or value of damages.
`
`

`

`Slip Opinion, p. 2. Hackett thus makes it clear that there are two separate factual issues
`
`regarding lost wage damages,the first being whetherthere are any lost wagesatall, and
`
`the second going to the “amount or value of damages.” In this case, of course, there is no
`
`dispute whatsoeveroverthe first part of Hackett, the “existence of lost wages”resulting
`
`from Mr. Stack’s premature demise. The only issue that Crane raises goes to the second
`
`part of Hackett, “the ability to precisely calculate the amount of value of damages.” But
`
`even the Hackett case makesit clear that Crane’s “speculation” argument, predicated asit
`
`is only on the amount of damages, is misplaced as a matter of law. Since there is no
`
`dispute at all about the fact that there are lost wagesin this case, it is up to the jury to
`
`determine the amount based on the evidencethat is admitted.
`
`The facts of Hackett demonstrate how far off the mark Crane’s motionis here.
`
`After the injury at issue in Hackett, the plaintiff continued to work and actually worked
`
`more than she had before she injured her shoulder. Nevertheless, she sought to have an
`
`economist testify that she would suffer future lost wages assuming that the kind of “light
`
`duty” work she was performing might become unavailable in a future union contract.
`
`Ms. Hackett lost the motion in limine because she provided no evidence to support her
`
`claim, her argument being based entirely on “supposition and rumors”about the
`
`possibility that such work might become unavailable in an unknown,future union
`
`contract. Here, Mr. Stack’s lost wages are definite; he died as a result of his
`
`mesothelioma while earning seven figures a year. The only question then becomes, what
`
`is the amount ofthat lost income?
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Oneofthe lead cases addressing a plaintiffs entitlement to lost future earningsis
`
`Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz, 491 Pa. 561, 421 A.2d. 1027 (1980). The Supreme Court there
`
`held as follows:
`
`If the facts afford a reasonably fair basis for calculating how much
`plaintiff's entitled to, such evidence cannot be regarded as legally
`insufficient to support a claim for compensation.
`
`Id. at 567, quoting Western Show Co., Inc. v. Mix, 308 Pa. 215, 162 A. 667 (1932).
`
`See also DiBuono vy. A. Barletta & Sons, Inc., 127 Pa. Cmwith. 1, 12 n.6, 560 A.2d 893
`
`(1989). Helpin v. Trustees of Univ. ofPennsylvania, 608 Pa. 45, 51, 10 A.3d 267 (2010)
`
`(citing Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation v. Pfeifer, 462 U.S. 523, 546, 103 S.Ct. 2541
`
`(1983) ([Bly its very nature the calculation of an award for lost earnings must be a rough
`
`approximation.”)).
`
`Asnoted in Hackett, damages are considered “speculative” only where the issue
`
`pertains to the existence ofdamages,rather than the precise calculation or amount
`
`thereof.
`
`[I]nnumerable court decisions involving the analogous law of civil damages
`[] hold that damages are considered speculative only if there is uncertainty
`concerning the existence of damages rather than the ability to precisely
`calculate the amountor value of damages.
`
`Pennsylvania State Univ./PMA Ins. Grp. v. W.C._A.B. (Hensal), 911 A.2d 225, 232-33
`(Pa. Commw.Ct. 2006) (citing Kituskie v Corbman, 552 Pa. 275, 714 A.2d 1027 (1998);
`
`Carroll by Burbank v. Phila. Housing Auth., 168 Pa.Cmwlth. 275, 650 A.2d 1097
`
`(Pa.Cmwith.1994) (damagesare speculative if uncertainty concerns fact of damages, not
`
`amount)).
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`In Sweitzer v. Oxmaster, Inc., the court denied a motion in limine seeking to
`
`preclude a plaintiff from presenting evidenceat trial to support a claim for future lost
`
`earnings on the alleged ground that the claim was too speculative. 2011 WL 721907
`
`(E.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2011). Citing to Kaczkowski, the court explained:
`
`Once the plaintiff satisfies th[e] standard [iterated in Kaczkowskil, then lost
`future earnings capacity damages may be submitted to the fact finder for
`consideration.
`
`Id. at *6 (citing Kearns v. Clark, 343 Pa.Super. 30, 493 A.2d 1358, 1364
`
`(Pa.Super.Ct.1985) (requiring “sufficient data from which the damages can be assessed
`
`with reasonable certainty” before a jury may decide whether loss of earning power
`
`occurred). The court continued by explaining the proper evidentiary framework for
`
`presenting and calculating such damages, again citing to Kaczkowski:
`
`The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has provided factfinders with “a framework for
`calculating a damages award based onlost future earnings” and emphasized that
`“an evidentiary approach”should be taken in determining lost future earnings,
`specifically “the fact-finder should consider relevant evidence as to productivity
`factors and then make an informed estimation as to lost future earnings based on
`all the evidence presented.” Helpin v. Trs. of Univ. ofPennsylvania, 10 A.3d 267,
`273 (Pa. 2010).
`
`Sweitzer, supra, p.0.
`
`In Rapp v. Behm(again citing to Kaczkowski), testimony from a decedent’s
`
`employer and father created “‘an adequate factual background prepared for expert
`
`testimony on future earnings,” since “there was ample, reliable evidence of decedent’s
`
`‘age, maturity, education and skill. In addition, the testimony concerning decedent's work
`
`habits, maintenance costs, past earnings and earnings projected up to the timeoftrial
`
`presented plaintiff's expert with a clear, uncontested ‘evolving pattern’ of decedent’s
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`life.”21 Pa. D. & C.3d 746, 750 (Pa. Com. PI. 1981). The court also explained that
`
`“[nJothing in the Kaczkowski decision or any other decision of which weare
`
`aware, suggests that a greater foundation is necessary before an expert’s projection of a
`
`victim’s lost earnings is admissible.” Jd. at 751.
`
`Expert testimony regarding future wagesis properly presented to a jury and “if
`
`accepted as credible, is legally sufficient to establish the extent” of damages.
`
`Pennsylvania State Univ./PMA Ins. Grp. v. W.C_A.B. (Hensal), 911 A.2d 225, 232 (Pa.
`
`Commw.Ct. 2006) (citing Ruzzi v. Butler Petroleum Co., 527 Pa. 1, 588 A.2d 1 (1991)
`
`(expert testimony regarding loss of future earnings not speculative); Kaczkowskiv.
`
`Bolubasz, 491 Pa. 561, 421 A.2d 1027 (1980) (inherently speculative nature of lost future
`
`earnings doesnot justify excluding reliable economic evidence); Gary v. Mankamyer,
`
`485 Pa. 525, 403 A.2d 87 (1979); Burkett v. George, 118 Pa.Cmwlth. 543, 545 A.2d 985
`
`(1988) (testimonyof actuary).
`
`In Gillingham v. Consol Energy, Inc., 51 A.3d 841, 864-66 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012),
`
`the court rejected the defendant’s can attention that the testimonyofthe plaintiff that he
`
`intended to continue working until age 70 was “speculative” and insufficient as a basis to
`
`award future lost earnings. “There was nothing speculative or uncertain about the proof
`
`offered, and the jury verdict was within the range of that established by the evidence.”It
`
`is up to the jury to determine whatcredit to give to the testimony of a witness that he
`
`intends to work to age 65, 70, or whatever age it might be. There is no wayto predict the
`
`future with absolute certainty, which is what Crane wants in this instance. Jd. Mr.
`
`Stack’s actual intention and likely future work course can only betestified to by third
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`parties since he is deceased. The testimonythat the court will hear from Dr. Blincoe, Dr.
`
`McFarling, and Mrs. Stack will provide far more than is necessary asa basis to support
`
`Dr. Rodgers’ expert opinion.
`
`In essence, Defendants are seeking a directed verdict on the issue of damages
`
`before the evidence is even presented. But directed verdicts are never appropriate where
`
`there is some evidence to support a plaintiff's claim that a jury could reasonably rely
`
`upon. In Lilley v. Johns-Manville Corp., 596 A.2d 203, 213, 408 Pa.Super. 83 (1991)
`
`(affirming denial of directed verdict), the courtstated:
`
`A motion for a directed verdict admits as true all facts and proper
`inferences from testimony which tend to support the opposing
`party’s case, and rejects all testimony and inferencesto the
`contrary. Morton v. Borough ofAmbridge, 375 Pa. 630, 633, 101
`A.2d 661, 662 (1954). Such a motion can properly be granted by a
`court only if the facts are clear and free from doubt. Person v. C.R.
`Baxter Realty Co., 340 Pa.Super. 537, 540, 490 A.2d 910, 911
`(1985). On a motion for directed verdict, the trial court must
`considerthe facts in the light most favorable to the party against
`whom the motion is being made. Cooke v. Travelers Insurance
`Co., 350 Pa.Super. 467, 471, 504 A.2d 935, 936 (1986). It is not
`within the province ofthe trial court to weigh conflicting evidence
`when ruling upon a motion for directed verdict as credibility is a
`jury question. Person v. C.R. Baxter Realty Co., supra at 541 n. 2,
`490 A.2d at 912 n. 2.
`
`(Lilley v. Johns-Manville Corp., 596 A.2d 203, 213, 408 Pa.Super. 83
`(1991)
`
`Here, there is not only some evidence, the very best evidence that could possibly
`
`exist on this issue. Moreover, the evidence that Mr. Stack would have worked until he
`
`was68, 70, or beyond, is uncontradicted evidence!
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`IV.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons and other reasons apparent of record, Defendant Crane’s
`
`Motion in Limine should be denied.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`Savinis & Kane, L.L.C.
`
`
`JohyR. Kane, Esquire
`Savinis & Kane, L.L.C.
`3626 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`(412) 227-6556
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`
`
`by the Defendants, pursuant to notice and the Pennsylvania Rules of
`Civil Procedure pertaining to the taking of depositions,
`taken
`before me,
`the undersigned, Terri J. Urbash, a Notary Public in and
`for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at the offices Parks, Chesin &
`
`NETWORKDEPOSITION SERVICES
`Transcript of William Blincoe, M.D.
`
`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY
`
`PENNSYLVANIA
`
`)CIVIL DIVISION - ASBESTOS
`
`GD-12-020620
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`MARY K. STACK, Executrix of
`
`the Estate of ROBERT T.
`
`STACK, deceased, and MARY
`
`K. STACK,
`
`in her own right,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`I.U. NORTH AMERICA,
`
`INC.,
`
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Deposition of WILLIAM BLINCOE, M.D.
`
`Monday, August 17, 2015
`
`
`The deposition of WILLIAM BLINCOE, M.D., called as a witness
`
`Walbert, P.C. 75 14th Street NE, 26th Floor, Atlanta Georgia 30309
`commencing at 8:31 a.m.,
`the day and date above set forth,
`
` ETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES
`
`SUITE 1101, GULF TOWER
`
`PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15219
`
`412-281-7908
`
`Johnstown- Erie - Pittsburgh - Greensburg - Harrisburg
`866-565-1929
`
`

`

`NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES.
`Transcript of William Blincoe, M.D.
`
`2
`
`(Pages 2 to 5)
`
`i
`i
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`Onbehalfof the Defendants Allied Glove and Crane Co.:
`
`Swartz Campbell, LLC:
`Shayna A. Petrella, Esquire (via phone)
`4750 US,Steel Tower
`oo
`600 Grant Steet
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
`Onbehalfofthe Defendant Sundync, LLC:
`Willman & Silvaggio, LLP:
`Ronald J. Richert, Esquire (via phonc}
`One Corporate Center
`5500 Corporate Drive, Sutte 150
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15237
`
`Onbehalfof the Defendant CBS Corp.-
`Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, P.C.:
`Paul Kruper, Esquire (via phonc)
`600 Grant Street, 44th Floor
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
`Onbehalfofthe Defendant Spirax Sarco, Inc.:
`Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.:
`James P. Killeen, Esquire (via phonc)
`Two PPG Place, Suite 400
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
`Onbehalf of the Defendant William Powell Company:
`Clemente Mueller, PA:
`William F, Mueller, Esquire (via phone)
`222 Ridgedale Avenue
`Cedar Knolls, NewJersey 07927
`On behalfof the Defendant Eaton Corporation a/sfi
`Cutler-Hammer, Inc.;
`Goldberg, Miller & Rubin:
`Haley B. Welch, Esquire (via phonc)
`121 South Broad Strect, Suite 1600
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
`
`P-A.C.
`“N_D-_E-N
`EN-D-E-X P-A-G-E
`DEPOSITION EXHIBITS MARKED
`- NONE-
`EXAMINATIONBY:
`Ms. Watson-
`Ms. Cochran -
`Mr. Kane -
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44113
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
`Onbehalfof the Defendants Ingersoll Rand Company; Warren
`Pumps, LLC; Flowserve Corp. as successor in interest to
`Durametallic Corp.:
`Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin:
`Melissa D. Cochran, Esquire
`600 Grant Street
`Suite 2900
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
`On behalfof the Defendant American Optical Corporation
`Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP:
`David J. Singley, Esquire (via phone)
`One Oxford Centre, 301 Grant Street
`Suite 2800
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
`On behaif of the Defendant BW/IP:
`Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney:
`John A. Turlik, Esquire (via phone}
`1818 Market Street
`Suite 2600
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
`Onbehalf of the Defendants [HC/Carborundum and Safety First
`Industries, Inc.:
`
`COUNSEL PRESENT:
`Onbehalfofthe Plainuff:
`Savinis, D'Amico & Kane, LLP:
`John Kane, Esquire
`Suite 3626, Gulf Tower
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
`
`Richardson,Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC:
`Kenneth J. Wilson, Esquire
`1730 JacksonStreet
`Hanae roan Carolina 29812
`Onbehalf ofthe Defendant IU. North America, Inc., as
`successor by merger to The Garp Company,f/k/a The Gage
`Company,f/k/a Pittsburgh Gage and Supply Company:
`Wilbraham Lawler & Buba:
`603 Stanwix Street
`Jennifer E.Watson, Esquire
`Two Gateway Center, 17 North
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
`Onbehalf ofthe Deponent:
`Parks, Chesin & Walbert, P.C.:
`David F. Walbert, Esquire
`26th Floor
`75 Fourteenth Street
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Onbehalfof the Defendant Rockwell Automation
`
`Swartz Campbell, LLC:
`William Jones, Esquire
`Two Liberty Place
`28th Floor
`50 South 16th Street
`Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
`
`L
`:
`|
`|
`
`Page 3
`
`2
`
`i
`i
`'
`i
`:
`i
`i
`i
`i
`i
`
`3
`f
`2
`(2
`-_
`
`1
`'
`
`
`:
`5
`|
`i
`
`
`
`
`Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson, LLC
`Deborah L. lannamorelli, Esquire (via phone)
`100 West Station Square Drive
`Landmarks Building, Suite 250
`Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219
`
`On behalf of the Defendant Schneider Electric USA, Inc.
`formerly known as Square D Company:
`Kelley Jasons McGowanSpinelli Hanna & Reber, LLP
`John A. Kristan, Jr., Esquire (via phone)
`1220 West6th Street, Suite 305
`
`Johnstown- Erie - Pittsburgh - Greensburg - Harrisburg
`866-565-1929
`
`

`

`DnNOBWDbP
`
`Page 6
`
`WILLIAM BLINCO
`
`Called as a witness by the defendants, having
`been first duly sworn, as hereinafter
`certified, was deposed and said as follows:
`EXAMINATION
`BY MS. WATSON:
`
`Q Good morning,sir.
`A Good morning.
`Q. Mynameis Jennifer Watson. I'm going
`to start off by asking you the questions today,
`but there are others here in the room and on the
`
`telephone that will also have an opportunity to
`ask you questions.
`Can you identify yourself, please,
`A My nameis William Blincoe,
`B-L-I-N-C-O-E.
`
`And have you ever been deposed before?
`Yes, ma'am.
`Under what circumstances?
`
`Medical/legal.
`Wereyou a witness, an expert witness?
`Correct.
`I have never been sued;
`it was as an expert witness.
`Q And about how manyoccasions?
`A Offand on over about 20 years.
`
`May give a deposition once a year, maybe twice a
`year max. So over 20 years, more than a handful
`of times.
`
`of mine, and an individual 1 worked with,
`
`Q_ Okay. It sounds like you have been in
`this situation before, but just so the record is
`clear, please make sure that, if you don't
`understand any of my questions, that you fet me
`knowand I will rephrase them. If you don't hear
`my questions, let me knowand I'll speak louder.
`If you need to take a break for whatever reason,
`please just let us know, the only thing that I ask
`is if there is a question pending that you provide
`a response to that question before taking a break;
`okay?
`Okay.
`A
`Q You have doneit so far, but please
`try to use verbal answers, "yes," "no" instead of
`"uh-huh" or “huh-uh," because when the court
`reporter typesit up,it is difficult to determine
`what wasbeing said; okay?
`A
`Okay.
`Q_ What is your home address?
`A
`1600 Friar Tuck, F-R-I-A-R T-U-C-K,
`Atlanta, ZIP is 30309.
`It is about two miles from
`here.
`
`NETWORK DEPOSITION SERVICES
`Transcript of William Blincoe, M.D.
`
`3
`
`(Pages 6 to 9)
`
`Page 8
`
`And whatis your business address?
`275 Collier Road, Suite 300, Atlanta,
`
`Are you married?
`Lam.
`
`Whatis your wife's name?
`Martha.
`
`And what is your date of birth?
`April 30th, 1953.
`Do you have any children?
`Ido.
`I have three daughters.
`Andwhatis the range of their ages?
`I have a 31-year-old and 27-year-old
`
`wor oSPOPOPSOPrFHOPOSPO 6
`
`twins.
`
`Q Your 31-year-old daughter, what does
`she do for a living?
`A
`Sheis an interior designer in
`San Francisco.
`
`Q_ And how aboutthe 27-year-old twins?
`A Theyboth live in Atlanta. One's a
`first grade teacher and the other is a speech
`therapist.
`Q__ Does your wife, Martha, work outside
`of the home?
`
`A She does. She's a pediatric physical
`
`therapist.
`Q What is your educational background?
`A
`I went to undergraduate at
`Northwestern University in Evanston,Illinois.
`And I went to med schoolat the University of
`Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas.
`Then I started my residency,
`internship and residency, in San Antonio, Texas.
`And then I moved to Atlanta for love and finished
`
`my residency at Emory University-affiliated
`hospitals, and started and completed a fellowship
`in cardiology, and then I finally got a job.
`Q_ When did you graduate fromthe
`University of Kansas Medical School?
`A
`1979,
`
`Q And during what years did you -- did
`you have your residency in San Antonio,