Judge Steelman
Judicial Perspective Simulator
3
Strong Points
2
Weak Points
4
Hot Bench Q's
Predicted Ruling
⚠️ Partial Grant Likely
Strong on causation, weak on notice
Judicial Perspective Analysis
1. Specific Causation — Employment Duration
✓ Strong Argument
From Your Brief
"Plaintiff's own testimony claims 10 years of employment, but W-2 records conclusively establish only 5 years. This material factual dispute undermines the causation analysis."
Judicial Perspective
This is your strongest point. Documentary evidence directly contradicting plaintiff's testimony creates a genuine credibility issue. Be prepared to hammer this at oral argument.
"Counsel, does the plaintiff have any explanation for the discrepancy between his testimony and the employment records?"
2. Expert Qualification — Daubert Challenge
✓ Strong Argument
From Your Brief
"Dr. Chen's methodology fails to meet Daubert standards. No dose-response analysis, no fiber-year calculation, and no differential diagnosis ruling out other exposure sources."
Judicial Perspective
Well-argued. The methodology gaps are significant. However, expect plaintiff to counter with "generally accepted medical opinion" arguments. Prepare for the court's reluctance to exclude expert testimony entirely.
"Are you asking me to exclude this expert entirely, or limit the scope of testimony?"
3. Notice — Knowledge of Asbestos Hazards
⚠️ Needs Work
From Your Brief
"Defendant had no actual or constructive knowledge of asbestos hazards during plaintiff's employment period."
Judicial Perspective
This is your weakest point. The OSHA standards from 1972 and industry publications from the 1960s create serious problems for a "no knowledge" defense. Plaintiff will cite these. You need a better answer than denial.
"Counsel, isn't it true that OSHA published asbestos exposure limits in 1972, during the plaintiff's employment?"
"How can your client claim no knowledge when industry publications warned of these hazards?"
4. Comparative Fault — Other Employers
○ Uncertain Impact
From Your Brief
"Plaintiff worked at two other industrial facilities with known asbestos exposure. Any causation analysis must account for these alternative sources."
Judicial Perspective
This cuts both ways. It undermines plaintiff's specific causation argument but doesn't absolve your client—it just spreads liability. In a joint-and-several jurisdiction, this may not help you much. Know your jurisdiction's allocation rules.
"Even if other employers share fault, how does that entitle your client to summary judgment rather than apportionment at trial?"