In Schultz v. Akzo Nobel Paints, LLC, 721 F.3d 426 (7th Cir. 2013) (No. 12-1902), the Seventh Circuit reversed a summary judgment granted by the district court for the defendant in a case alleging wrongful exposure to benzene. The district court had ruled for defendant based on its view that the plaintiff’s exposure and oncology expert testified unreliably by asserting that there is no “floor” level of exposure to benzene below which there is no risk of DNA mutations. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, noting that this statement by the expert was collateral to his opinion because there was no dispute that the plaintiff had received exposure to benzene substantially in excess of any such “floor” during his eight years of working with defendant’s product. This digression did not disqualify the expert where the opinion he offered with respect to the specific plaintiff’s exposure rested on the facts of that exposure and was supported with respect to that level of exposure by legitimate studies upon which he properly relied.