George W. Giles v. Carmi flavor and Frangrance Company, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that plaintiff’s damages were not “as a matter of law” capable of ascertainment when two specialists were unable to connect plaintiff’s damages to the injury, even though plaintiff speculated the causal connection
• noting that another Missouri court found that a plaintiff’s damages were not capable of ascertainment as a matter of law merely because plaintiff “suffered symptoms [at work] but ‘felt fine’ as soon as he left his work place”
• noting how a physician did not find that plaintiff suffered from the same lung disease as other workers involved with the at-issue chemical when he exhibited different symptoms
• declining to find that as a matter of law that plaintiff’s claim accrued prior to his diagnosis even though he “wondered” whether his symptoms were due to his exposure to the at-issue chemical
• collecting Missouri cases and finding that while some cases required a diagnosis before a reasonable person would have been on notice of the injury, others made clear that “a cause of action can be capable of ascertainment prior to diagnosis”
• “The record simply does not bear out, as a matter of law, that Giles could have maintained the action to a successful result prior to 2007, unlike in Ahearn . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).