ShareThis Page

Dismissal of expert testimony appealed

Mary Ann Thomas
| Sunday, July 28, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

Plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit have appealed a magistrate judge's recommendation to throw out their primary expert testimony that alleges that radioactive emissions in Apollo caused cancer in the more than 75 claimants.

The recommendation by Robert C. Mitchell, a U.S. magistrate judge, filed on July 13, indicated that the case is at an end when such expert testimony cannot be presented.

On Friday, plaintiffs appealed those recommendations of Judge Mitchell, who ruled against the plaintiffs in seven out of eight pre-trial motions on health expert testimony.

“Plaintiffs believe that the Magistrate Judge ‘crossed the boundary between gatekeeper and trier of fact,'” according to Friday's appeal.

Earlier, Jonathan Orent with Motley Rice's Rhode Island office, the lead plaintiff attorney, said the federal judge for the case, Judge David Cercone, will make the ultimate ruling on the issue.

The appeal is the latest action in the 2010 lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh claiming that radioactive emissions from the former nuclear fuel plant in Apollo caused cancer and other illnesses, killing some people.

The defendants are Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group and the Atlantic Richfield Co., which operated a uranium fuel-processing plant founded by the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp., or NUMEC, in Apollo and a plutonium plant in Parks from about 1957 to 1986.

Calls to the defendants were not immediately returned on Saturday evening.

One of the sticking points in the pre-trial proceedings is calculating the dose of radioactivity each claimant received who lived near the Apollo plant.

Mitchell earlier wrote: “At the hearing, Dr. (James) Melius (called by Defendants as a hostile witness) testified that, although all Americans are exposed to hundreds of millirems of ionizing radiation every day, adding up to thousands of millirems over the years, he believes Plaintiffs received ‘substantially' more than background radiation, yet he could not quantify this amount.”

According to the plaintiff's appeal: “… The true extent of unmonitored and accidental (radioactive) releases can never be known because of Defendants' deliberate decisions not to monitor their emissions. According to Defendants' own records, the decision not to monitor was driven by cost without regard to the human toll that would result.”

Two of the plaintiffs' experts believed that such a dose analysis would “significantly understate any individual's exposure.” The experts say that there are scientifically sound principles for their conclusions that dose reconstruction was not warranted.

Mary Ann Thomas is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-226-4691 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.