Toxic Tort Defense Litigation

MGKF has a broad range of toxic tort experience involving a variety of environmental media (air, water, and soil), contaminants, and claims, including claims for personal injury and death, medical monitoring, diminution of property value, and damages for annoyance and inconvenience. The firm has also defended numerous class actions involving toxic tort claims. We have worked with and against a variety of experts, including toxicologists, epidemiologists, physicians with a variety of specialties, industrial hygienists, hydrogeologists, air modelers, risk assessors, chemists, engineers, geologists, appraisers, and economists conducting hedonic regression analysis. Our experience includes the following specific cases:

• We represented a large manufacturing client in all litigation in Pennsylvania involving toxic tort claims for alleged occupational and ambient air exposure to respirable particles of beryllium. The claims were filed in federal and state court, and included claims for personal injury, death, and medical monitoring. Included within these claims were four separate cases filed as class actions-two in federal court and two in state court-seeking certification of classes of persons exposed to respirable amounts of beryllium, and seeking medical monitoring under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Redland Soccer Club. Reported decisions include the following: (1) Pohl v. NGK Metals Corp., 2003 WL 24207633 (Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. County July 9, 2003), aff'd, 863 A.2d 1239 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Table), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 718, 872 A.2d 1200 (2005) (Table) (denying certification of a putative class of persons living within vicinity of former beryllium processing facility who sought medical monitoring under Redland Soccer Club for exposures to above-background levels of beryllium in ambient air); (2) Vitalo v. Cabot Corp., 399 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2005) (affirming entry of summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds where plaintiff had allegedly contracted beryllium lung disease from exposure to respirable beryllium in ambient air, despite lack of previous diagnosis); (3) Sheridan v. Cabot Corp., 2004 WL 2360990 (3d Cir. Oct. 19, 2004) (affirming entry of summary judgment against plaintiff for lack of competent evidence that alleged beryllium lung disease, documented by interstitial markings in lungs, had caused a compensable impairment); (4) Debiec v. Cabot Corp., 352 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2003) (four separate cases consolidated on appeal in which trial court entered summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds; three of four cases reversed on appeal on ground that issues of fact remained for trial).
• We represented a public utility in ongoing litigation in state court where plaintiffs sought medical monitoring on behalf of a class of residents allegedly exposed to elemental mercury from the removal of regulators.
• We represented a gasoline jobber in defense of a wrongful death action alleging that exposure to benzene in a private drinking water well caused adenocarcinoma. Through expert testimony, we established that the particular adenocarcinoma was a rare form of cancer, and there was insufficient scientific evidence demonstrating association of benzene (a known carcinogen) with this particular form of cancer and origin. The trial court precluded plaintiff's expert testimony and entered summary judgment. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, and a petition for allowance of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was denied. Wack v. Farmland Industries, Inc. 744 A.2d 265 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999).
• We represented a large manufacturing client in litigation in federal court involving claims by two dairy farmers that fluoride emissions from an ore processing facility damaged the productivity of dairy herds over a thirty-year period.