and therefore [the medical conditions] cannot be causally related to asbestos exposure sufficient to sustain a compensable injury.” Tr. Ct. Slip Op. at 4; “Neither of the plaintiffs can currently meet his burden of demonstrating that asbestos exposure created impairment or disability beyond the severe breathing problems he has from smoking and other ailments.” Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 886 A.2d at 246-47 (OISA). As noted, supra Part II, “summary judgment is appropriate only in those cases where the record clearly demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 571 Pa. 580, 812 A.2d 1218, 1221-22 (2002). Equally clea 07 Pa. 339, 180 A.2d 414, 419 (1962) (<HOLDING>); Finney v. G.C. Murphy, Co., 406 Pa. 555, 178
holding that it is not the courts role to decide whether an experts opinion is correct holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury holding where reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the defendants act was the or a proximate cause of the injury the matter is for the jury to decide holding that whether the negligent acts of parties combined to become the proximate cause of the injury was a question for the jury