Bartlett v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

Case Updates

The U.S. Chamber filed an amicus brief urging the Sixth Circuit to reverse the district court’s decision to prevent the defendant from presenting evidence that the plaintiff’s very low exposure to the toxic C8 chemical did not cause her kidney cancer. Instead, the court mistakenly held that, because the parties had stipulated to a scientific expert panel’s finding that C8 was probably capable of causing kidney cancer as a general matter, the defendant was foreclosed from arguing that the plaintiff’s particular, low exposure level did not cause her cancer.

Thus, the Chamber explained, the court impermissibly conflated general causation with specific causation, depriving the defendant of a valid defense. In addition, the Chamber warned that, if left in place, the district court’s ruling would discourage parties from future attempts to innovatively and efficiently settle toxic tort disputes.

The American Tort Reform Association and American Chemistry Council filed this brief jointly with the U.S. Chamber.

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz and Justin A. Torres of King & Spalding LLP served as counsel for the amici.