February 3, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 34

Advertisement

February 03, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 02, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 01, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Following Daubert Hearing, Federal Court Refuses to Certify Proposed Medical Monitoring Class

Exercising its authority to address Daubert challenges at the class certification stage, the Southern District of West Virginia refused to certify proposed Plaintiff classes in a toxic exposure case because it found the expert testimony on which they relied to be inadmissible. See Coleman v. Union Carbide, No. 11-0366 (S.D. W.Va. Sept. 30, 2013). Plaintiffs alleged that multiple Defendants were responsible for an alloy plant’s emissions over a period of decades. Coleman, slip op. at 3-9. 

Plaintiffs proposed two classes for certification, which were defined by whether individuals met certain exposure criteria, and sought a “comprehensive, court-supervised program of medical monitoring” in addition to a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from further emissions in excess of regulatory limits. Id. at 12-13. Applying Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), in which the Supreme Court recently affirmed that courts may examine the merits of a claim at the class certification stage, the district court allowed Defendants to challenge Plaintiffs’ expert testimony under Daubert as part of their effort to defeat class certification. Id. at 52-54.

Noting that “the expert opinions in the case are the primary evidentiary means chosen by plaintiffs” to meet the class certification requirements, the court undertook an extensive analysis of the admissibility of testimony from two of Plaintiffs’ experts. Id. at 54. The court found that the experts’ opinions were not based on sufficient facts or data, and questioned their methodology. Id. at 84, 101.  Based on the exclusion of this expert testimony, the court found that “the proposed classes have, at a minimum, become unascertainable,” and concluded that Plaintiffs did not meet the requirements for class certification. Id. at 101, 106. In dicta, the court also noted that “no circuit court of appeals has ever approved certification of a medical monitoring class action,” and expressed reluctance to adopt a different approach. Id. at 103. 

© 2023 Beveridge & Diamond PC National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 48
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Daniel M. Krainin Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond New York, NY
Principal

Dan deploys more than two decades of environmental litigation experience to resolve clients’ legal and business challenges.

Primarily focused on environmental and toxic tort litigation, Dan helps clients successfully resolve groundwater contamination, hazardous waste site remediation, natural resource damages, permit defense and product-related matters. He enjoys using his skills as a litigator to help clients solve environmental problems.

Among his many wins, Dan successfully led a team that defeated an emergency challenge to a permit that Dan’s client needed to continue its...

212-702 5417
Mackenzie S. Schoonmaker Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond New York, NY
Principal

Mackenzie’s practice includes both litigation and regulatory matters arising under FIFRA, the Clean Water Act, and related environmental laws.

She is passionate about conserving air, water, wildlife, and land for future generations, and enjoys helping clients navigate and enforce the detailed framework of environmental law because she believes compliance is key to preventing adverse impacts to the environment.

Mackenzie is a co-chair of Beveridge & Diamond’s Industrial Hemp & Cannabis industry team. She advises clients, and regularly writes and presents, on federal...

212-702-5415
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement