between exposure to a toxin and subsequent adverse health effects.” Young, 567 F.Supp.2d at 128. A temporal relationship is sufficient to establish causation only where “the circumstances of the exposure and the timing of the illness [are] so compelling as to render further evidence of causation unnecessary!.]” Id. at 128. A. Acute injuries Specific causation of plaintiffs’ acute injuries may be established through expert testimony or through lay testimony establishing a temporal relationship between exposure to the toxin and the acute injury. Temporal evidence without expert testimony may be sufficient to prove specific causation for acute injuries where the symptoms from exposure to the toxin were experienced immediately, or nearly so. See McCallum, 2005 WL 1048735, at *11-12 (<HOLDING>). In G.C. ex rel. Johnson v. Wyndham Hotels &
holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation holding that evidence that symptoms known to be associated with toxin poisoning exhibited three days after exposure and eyewitness testimony that the plaintiff was exposed to the toxin created a genuine issue of triable fact holding that the nonmoving party must come forward with significant probative evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim holding nonmoving partys affidavit created genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an employment relationship