## Facts

- Terry Jones worked as a welder using welding rods manufactured or distributed by several defendant companies.
- Jones claimed manganese in welding fumes caused a Parkinson-like neurological condition (manganism).
- Defendants disputed causation, asserting Jones had idiopathic Parkinson’s disease unrelated to manganese exposure.
- Jones offered expert testimony diagnosing manganism and attributing it to welding-fume exposure; other physicians diagnosed idiopathic Parkinson’s disease.
- Defendants presented expert testimony from Dr. Thomas W. Eager concerning welding-fume research (described as “joint research”) and an epidemiological study of welders (the “Caterpillar Study”) focusing on pulmonary outcomes.
- Jones challenged Eager’s qualifications and the relevance and accuracy of Eager’s descriptions of the research and study.
- The jury returned a verdict for defendants on all counts.
- Post-verdict, Jones sought relief from judgment, asserting newly discovered evidence (including deposition testimony) showed Eager’s trial testimony was false or materially misleading; Jones also pursued sanctions/contempt relief related to Eager’s conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting challenged portions of the defense expert’s testimony and by overruling objections to portions of defense closing argument.
2. Whether Jones preserved alleged evidentiary and argument errors for appeal through timely and specific objections.
3. Whether Jones was entitled to relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) based on alleged newly discovered evidence impeaching or contradicting the defense expert’s trial testimony.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in resolving post-trial sanctions/contempt disputes involving the defense expert.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for defendants.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in the challenged evidentiary rulings and in rejecting claims of prejudicial closing argument.
- The court affirmed denial of Rule 60(b)(2) relief, finding the proffered materials did not meet the rule’s requirements, including materiality and probability of a different outcome.
- The court affirmed the district court’s handling of sanctions/contempt matters related to the expert, finding no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings, denials of Rule 60(b) relief, and sanctions determinations is generally for abuse of discretion.
- To preserve evidentiary error for appeal, an objection must be timely and sufficiently specific; otherwise the claim is forfeited.
- Rule 60(b)(2) relief requires proof that: (1) evidence was discovered after trial; (2) due diligence could not have discovered it earlier; (3) it is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) it is material; and (5) it would probably produce a different result in a new trial.
- Post-verdict attacks on expert testimony framed as “newly discovered evidence” fail when the asserted “new” materials primarily provide impeachment, reflect semantic or interpretive disputes, or are unlikely to change the verdict given the full trial record.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict in a welding-fume products-liability case, holding that alleged defects in expert testimony and closing argument did not justify a new trial, that claimed post-verdict revelations about the expert did not satisfy Rule 60(b)(2), and that the district court acted within its discretion in related sanctions proceedings.


Jones v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 188 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 1999)