shortness of breath is the only symptom of an alleged asbestos-related injury. A careful reading of these cases makes clear they require the existence of an asbestos-related condition, plus a symptom such as shortness of breath, and a causal connection between the two. See Summers, supra. In Ryan, Lonasco and White, the plaintiffs’ actual diagnosis of asbestosis just happened to be coincidentally among the required asbestos-related injuries. See Ryan, supra (stating compensable injury requires asbestos-related condition, discernible physical symptom, and functional impairment or disability resulting from asbestos exposure; plaintiff did not have compensable injury because he failed to prove his shortness of breath was causally related to his diagnosis of asbestosis); Lonasco, supra (<HOLDING>); White, supra (holding statute of limitations
holding that the plaintiff made a prima facie case even though there was no evidence of causal connection other than the fact that the plaintiff was fired after bringing a lawsuit holding that in addition to temporal proximity plaintiff must show further evidence supporting a causal connection holding evidence supported verdict for plaintiff where plaintiff introduced evidence of pleural thickening plaque formation and asbestosis coupled with shortness of breath and causal connection between them holding that the plaintiff demonstrated pretext in part by establishing a causal connection holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury