11th Circuit affirms tossing of expert reports in toxic waste suits against Lockheed Martin

“They didn’t do what they said they were going to do,” one appellate judge wrote of two experts cited by people who say they were sickened by the defense contractor's chemical contamination.ATLANTA (CN) — A federal appellate panel on Tuesday effectively ended one of two pending cases accusing Lockheed Martin of exposing people to dangerous carcinogenic chemicals.The three-judge 11th Circuit panel unanimously found two experts failed to reliably apply their own methodology in analyzing whether there is a link between chemicals leached from Lockheed Martin’s Orlando weapons manufacturing facility and injuries suffered by more than 60 people who say they developed cancer and other diseases due to the exposure.The panel upheld a Florida lower court decision and rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the federal judge incorrectly analyzed scientific literature offered by expert neurologist Dr. Daniel Kantor and Dr. Ronald Kendall, a toxicologist.The decision by Senior U.S. District Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr. ruling their methodologies were unreliable doomed many of the plaintiffs’ claims, leaving them without expert reports to show the chemicals caused their injuries.“The district court reasonably determined that Kantor did not reliably apply his methodology,” U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Brasher wrote on behalf of the panel. “And Kendall’s general causation opinion merely relied on the opinions of other experts like Kantor and did not reliably apply any methodology.”Kantor said he found solvents including tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE) and styrene can cause multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease.But the panel said that even if Kantor reliably found an association between the chemicals and the neurological conditions, he did not adequately explain his methodology.“Although his rebuttal report provided an example of ‘some of the factors’ he used to analyze some studies, he did not explain how he weighed those factors, what other factors he used, or even how these representative factors would apply to all of the studies he evaluated,” Brasher wrote.Kantor also failed to explain how he sorted studies that supported his conclusions or how he used his professional judgment to arrive at the best explanation, the panel found.Brasher also wrote that Kendall failed to “reliably conduct a background risk assessment,” an analysis of the risk members of the public have of suffering disease without exposure to the chemicals at issue.In a brief opinion concurring with the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Luck summed up the problem with the two experts: “In other words, they didn’t do what they said they were going to do.”Brasher and Luck, a fellow Trump appointee, were joined on the panel by U.S. Circuit Judge Jill Pryor, an appointee of Barack Obama.When reached for comment Tuesday afternoon, a spokesperson for law firm Morgan & Morgan, which represents the plaintiffs, said, “We are disappointed with the court’s decision and evaluating our options.”The plaintiffs in the two lawsuits, who lived or worked near the facility, say they now suffer from illnesses including breast cancer, thyroid cancer, leukemia, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease thanks to the “environmental nightmare” created by Lockheed Martin.The plaintiffs claimed the defense manufacturer dumped contaminants — many of them powerful carcinogens — into the soil, air and groundwater around the facility. They claimed the toxins “damage virtually every human bodily system.”Attorney Ryan Hopper of Greenberg Traurig, who represents Lockheed Martin, celebrated the decision Tuesday.“Lockheed Martin welcomes the 11th Circuit’s decision, which affirms the company’s longstanding position that its Sand Lake Road Complex did not cause or contribute to adverse health effects among those who worked or lived in the area,” Hopper said.The ruling leaves one of the two consolidated cases closed. Some claims may move forward in the second case because Dalton ruled only partially in Lockheed Martin’s favor.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads