Doctor's Advise Regarding Asbestos Dust and Serious Health Symptoms
In Copeland v. Armstrong Cork Co., 447 So. 2d 922, 926 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the district court noted:
It is urged, the plaintiff knew or should have known at this point that the accumulated effects of the deleterious asbestos dust were manifesting themselves in such a way as to give some evidence of causal relationship to the asbestos dust; this is particularly true when the plaintiff had numerous other warnings prior thereto that the subject asbestos dust was most unhealthy.
We certainly agree that a jury could reasonably so conclude, but we cannot agree that a jury could not reasonably fail to do so.
Decisive here is the plaintiff's consultation with two doctors immediately after serious symptoms appeared wherein the plaintiff's condition was diagnosed as emphysema and pneumonia unrelated to the job.
This disclosure, we think, could lead a reasonable person to conclude, as the plaintiff did, that his condition was not related to the asbestos dust at all.
Indeed, the inference seems irresistible as it was based on expert medical advice, rather than lay opinion.
Still, it is true that one of those doctors did advise the plaintiff to change jobs so as to avoid the subject asbestos dust, which, it is urged, shows evidence that the plaintiff's serious symptoms were related to the asbestos dust.
Perhaps, but, again, this is a question of fact for a jury to resolve, as conflicting reasonable inferences can surely be drawn from such a statement. 447 So. 2d at 927-28.