UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 96-31108
_____________________________________
PAUL LEBLANC, ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
ANGELA MARIA LEBLANC, ET AL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(86-CV-616)
______________________________________________________
July 27, 1998
Before KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, VANCE, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM:**
Appellants are the survivors of Paul LeBlanc, whose death
appellant attributed to his exposure to Fibreboard's product. The
case was tried to a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of
Fibreboard, apparently rejecting the appellants' claims that Paul
*
District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting
by designation.
**
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
LeBlanc's cancer was caused by his exposure to Fibreboard's
products.
In this appeal, appellants cite a number of errors, primarily
related to the manner in which the district court handled the
trial. Appellants assert that the district court erred in: (l)
limiting each side to calling one expert pathologist; (2)
overriding appellants' Daubert objection to the admission of the
testimony of Dr. Sherwin, Fibreboard's expert; (3) limiting the
scope of plaintiff's cross-examination of defendant's expert; and
(4) erroneously permitting Dr. Barr's report to be shown to the
jury.
We have carefully reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. The first three errors referred to above all relate to the
district court's manner of handling the trial and are reviewed by
us under an abuse of discretion standard. Our review of the record
reveals no abuse of discretion.
In appellant's final point of error relating to the submission
of Dr. Barr's report to the jury, the court may well have erred in
submitting that report to the jury. However, Dr. Sherwin, in his
live testimony before the jury, disclosed the significant features
of Dr. Barr's report. Consequently, the submission of Dr. Barr's
report, the substance of which had already been disclosed to the
jury, was not prejudicial to plaintiff and therefore is not
reversible error.
Because the district court committed no reversible error, its
2
judgment is AFFIRMED.
3