2BInformed: The Future of Fluoride in Drinking Water, the New TSCA Fees Rule, and the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 5
DynCorp's 'Strategic' Defense In Drug Crop Spraying Suit
In Terra Management Group v. Keaten the Colorado Supreme Court held on June 23 that a “court may sanction a party for the destruction of relevant evidence if the party knew or should have known that (1) litigation was pending...more
Court: United States Court for the Middle District of North Carolina - In this asbestos action, plaintiff Linwood W. Pierce alleged he was exposed to asbestos throughout his career as a welder and pipefitter from the...more
Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six - Plaintiff Easterling brought this claim based on his diagnosis of lung cancer, which he attributes to asbestos exposure during his work as...more
Plaintiffs in toxic tort cases must prove both general and specific causation, generally through the testimony of experts. Experts must establish that a specific chemical exposure can (and did) cause the specific injury at...more
It is becoming almost impossible to avoid being exposed to multiple different chemicals on a daily basis. Companies use them to make their environments look and smell cleaner, to keep pests away, and to save time in...more
The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for Exxon Mobil corporation in Stanley Cole v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (No. 14-22-00756-CV), a premises liability case involving alleged exposure to olivine dust. The...more
Amidst mounting per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulation and litigation, the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) judge overseeing the federal litigation related to firefighting foam has scheduled a “Science Day.”...more
In a toxic tort case, plaintiffs must establish general causation. If a substance is incapable of causing the type of injury plaintiff claims, then it certainly didn’t cause theirs. Under Texas law, toxic tort plaintiffs must...more
We are all familiar with the TV ads run by members of the plaintiffs’ bar seeking plaintiffs for mass toxic tort litigation, those asking whether you or someone you know has been “exposed” to a particular substance and now...more
Supreme Court of New York, New York County (NYCAL) - In this asbestos action, plaintiff Thomas Bassier alleged that he suffered injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by various companies...more
The case of Hardwick v. 3M, a per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) class action lawsuit filed in Ohio, has been marked as one of the most significant legal cases in recent history. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals...more
Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County - Defendant Milton Roy LLC filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to identify Milton Roy as a manufacturer of any asbestos-containing...more
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles - In this asbestos action, the court considered various defense motions. Defendant Western Auto Supply company filed a request opposing punitive damages, arguing...more
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana - In this asbestos action, Felton Robichaux worked as an insulator and carpenter at Avondale Shipyard from 1961 to 1979, and alleges he was exposed...more
Court: Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division One - Decedent Daniel Ochoa worked as a HVAC technician and pipefitter beginning in the 1970s. His work involved extensive maintenance on...more
Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County - Defendant Perkins Engine, Inc. moved to renew a court order denying its motion for summary judgment. A motion for leave to renew or reargue is based on new facts not offered on...more
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, June 23, 2022 - In this asbestos action, decedent John Wheeler alleged asbestos exposure from his work as a millwright at a U.S. Steel (USX) plant. Wheeler’s co-workers testified in this...more
In a recent decision on an asbestos exposure case, a New Jersey court once again reminded us that the admissibility of an expert opinion hinges upon the substance of the opinion, rather than the conclusions of the expert...more
Under the now widely-adopted Daubert standard, courts evaluate expert testimony based on the principles and methodology underlying the expert witness’s opinion. Admissibility of expert testimony is not governed by whether the...more
Most experienced asbestos trial lawyers will shout, “Depositions live forever!,” suggesting that evidence produced in one case at one time and in one state may live to influence the outcome in many cases for decades to come....more
Does Maryland law require that experts rely upon epidemiology to establish medical causation in a toxic exposures personal injury case? In Sugarman v. Liles, decided on July 31, 2018, the Maryland Court of Appeals strongly...more
Is that formaldehyde you smell in your newly floored sunroom? Hopefully, it is not. Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable, strong-smelling chemical used in construction and household products, such as cabinets, furniture,...more
DC High Court Adopts Daubert Approach to Expert Testimony - In a direct victory for mobile phone manufacturers and service providers, and with implications for any other case involving expert testimony in the District of...more
In a case that may make it easier to prove causation in Maryland lead paint cases, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that neither direct evidence of the source of lead nor expert testimony was necessary when a trier of fact...more
In an April 20, 2015, decision that was highly anticipated by the energy industry, the Colorado Supreme Court rejected a procedural device called a “Lone Pine” order that requires plaintiffs to make a threshold evidentiary...more