[the Taylor/White] standard or the less stringent standard [of McCauley ] requiring only shortness of breath is the proper standard, as I conclude that the plaintiffs in the present cases have satisfied both.”). An analysis under the Tay-lorfWhite test is simple: both men clearly suffer from “physical symptoms” and “functional impairments.” They have been forced into retirement, cannot walk short distances without becoming short of breath, nor can they enjoy fishing. Likewise, under McCauley, each man suffers from shortness of breath, has been diagnosed with an asbestos-related condition, and their shortness of breath, at least in part, has been causally linked to asbestos exposure. Accordingly, under Simmons and its (contradictory) progeny, Appellants suffer fro 71 A.2d 771 (1961) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. Port Auth. of Allegheny County, 136
holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury holding proximate cause almost always a question solely for the jury holding the denial of a proper question is always reversible error holding that whether the negligent acts of parties combined to become the proximate cause of the injury was a question for the jury holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury