In Pinares v. Raytheon, Case No. 19-14831 (11th Cir. Mar. 22, 2023), Florida toxicologist Lawrence Wylie testified that certain chemicals were found in groundwater near a Raytheon manufacturing site in south Florida, and had caused kidney cancer in residents.
The case began in 2006, when Magaly Pinares and two of her neighbors were diagnosed with kidney cancer. The Pinares and the other victims lived in The Acreage, an upscale residential community near West Palm Beach, about eight miles from the Raytheon facility. Raytheon had opened the site at the height of the Cold War, in 1958, to build and test jet engines. In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found 24 contaminants in the soil and water on the Raytheon property. A year later, the Florida Department of Health concluded that residents of The Acreage had experienced higher rates of brain cancer for the past 12 years.
The plaintiffs tested their well water and found three chemicals that are considered human carcinogens and filed suit against Raytheon in 2010. Magaly, known as “Maggie,” died in 2018. Wylie, the toxicologist, testified that the chemicals were found in the groundwater in sufficient concentrations to cause illness, and that Magaly Pinares was subjected to more than 8 micrograms of the contaminants per day – sufficient exposure to induce her kidney cancer but within Florida’s drinking water standards.
Raytheon challenged the expert’s opinion, and the District Court agreed, granting summary judgment in its favor. “But Dr. Wylie skipped the first step of a reliable dose-response assessment: He never ‘demonstrated ? the level of exposure to the allegedly harmful chemical that is hazardous to a human being,'” according to the11th Circuit. And because two other expert witnesses relied partly on Wylie’s toxicology study, their conclusions did not meet the standards outlined in Federal Rules of Evidence and in Daubert.
“Dose is the single most important factor to consider in evaluating whether an alleged exposure caused a specific adverse effect,” the court said, citing its 2005 decision in McClain vs. Metabolife. The lower courts must act as gatekeepers to ensure that speculative and unreliable opinions do not reach the jury, the judges noted. Both the district and appellate court said that Wylie had failed to show what level of the chemicals is considered hazardous to humans, or “how much is too much.” He did not appear to provide epidemiological evidence showing that exposure to chemicals can cause injury, Hull, the law professor, pointed out.