11th Circuit Tosses Lockheed Martin Expert Reports in Toxic Waste Suits

• The 11th Circuit upheld a lower court decision dismissing expert reports in two cases against Lockheed Martin, effectively ending one of them.
• The appellate panel found that both Dr. Daniel Kantor and Dr. Ronald Kendall failed to reliably apply their own methodologies.
• The decision highlights the importance of expert witness reliability in toxic tort cases and sets a precedent for the admissibility of expert reports.
• The plaintiffs claimed exposure to chemicals caused multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and other conditions.

A federal appellate panel in the 11th Circuit has upheld a lower court decision dismissing expert reports in two cases against Lockheed Martin, effectively ending one of them. The plaintiffs, who claim to have developed cancer and other diseases due to exposure to carcinogenic chemicals at the company's Orlando weapons manufacturing facility, relied on the expert testimony of Dr. Daniel Kantor and Dr. Ronald Kendall. However, the appellate panel found that both experts failed to reliably apply their own methodologies in analyzing the link between the chemicals and the plaintiffs' injuries.

The decision highlights the importance of expert witness reliability in toxic tort cases. The 11th Circuit panel found that Dr. Kantor's methodology was unreliable, as he failed to explain how he weighed factors, used his professional judgment, and sorted studies to support his conclusions. Similarly, Dr. Kendall's background risk assessment was deemed unreliable due to a lack of explanation for his methodology. This decision sets a precedent for the admissibility of expert reports in toxic tort cases.

The plaintiffs claimed that exposure to chemicals such as tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), and styrene caused their injuries, including multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. However, the appellate panel found that even if an association between the chemicals and these conditions existed, Dr. Kantor failed to adequately explain his methodology. This decision has significant implications for cases involving similar chemical exposures and disease causation.

This decision sets a precedent for the admissibility of expert reports in toxic tort cases, and lawyers should watch for potential implications on their own clients' cases involving similar chemical exposures.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service