Jones v. Lincoln Electric Co.

Jones (plaintiff) sued welding rod manufacturers (defendants), claiming manganese exposure from the rods caused his brain damage, but only his own expert diagnosed manganism, while other doctors attributed his condition to idiopathic Parkinson's disease. The jury ruled for the defendants. Jones later moved for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), claiming the defense expert, Dr. Eager, had testified falsely about conducting "joint research" with other professors and had mischaracterized findings from a study that actually examined lung cancer, not neurological effects. The district court found Eager hadn't materially misrepresented anything — his co-researcher simply had a different, subjective view of what counted as "joint" research — and denied relief because a new trial without Eager's testimony still wouldn't change the outcome, given the competing medical diagnosis. Jones appealed.