loader
Page is loading...
OVERVIEW

Dean T. Barnhard
Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P 317-231-7501

F 317-231-7433

OVERVIEW

Dean T. Barnhard
Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P 317-231-7501

F 317-231-7433

Dean Barnhard represents major businesses, including a Fortune 50 chemical and genetically engineered seed manufacturer, in the defense of toxic tort and product liability claims. With a substantial body of published decisions over the course of his career, Dean offers the tactical dispute resolution and trial experience, creativity and resourcefulness needed to resolve complex, high-stakes litigation.

OVERVIEW

Dean T. Barnhard Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P : 317-231-7501

Dean Barnhard represents major businesses, including a Fortune 50 chemical and genetically engineered seed manufacturer, in the defense of toxic tort and product liability claims. With a substantial body of published decisions over the course of his career, Dean offers the tactical dispute resolution and trial experience, creativity and resourcefulness needed to resolve complex, high-stakes litigation.

Dean has defended product-related mass tort and environmental contamination cases in Hawaii; mass tort, putative class action and RICO claims in New York; and cases of like kind, including individual wrongful death, personal injury, and crop loss cases across the country. He remains personally dedicated to making each client’s litigation more efficient and less costly by creating an actionable plan that concentrates on the solution, and not the fight. Dean possesses a seemingly innate ability to make discovery productive and beneficial to his client.

Dean believes that every dollar spent on litigation is money that cannot be invested back into his client’s business or the community. As a result, his goal is to find positive resolution as quickly as possible. He is particularly skilled in understanding what plaintiffs need in order to prove their cases, and then negotiating the right result based on those requirements. By isolating dispositive themes at the beginning of a case, Dean is consistently able to design the best possible approach to problem-solving.

Over more than three decades of continuous practice, Dean’s demonstrated artistry and proven ability to develop an optimized strategy has allowed him to defend, settle and fend off even the most challenging cases. Because Dean began his career in stage performance and music, he knows how to present his client’s position in a manner that is persuasive and effectual. Dean’s erudition, coupled with his approachable and down-to-earth personality, make him personable and dynamic both in and out of court.

Dean is involved in the national opioid litigation with over 550 lawsuits brought by counties, cities and towns from across the country seeking recovery for their costs associated in dealing with the opioid abuse epidemic. Dean also tried the first televised federal court trial in an action in New York involving James Dean's rights of publicity and helped successfully defend the James Dean Foundation Trust and others in a $90 million suit in Los Angeles brought by Warner Bros. over the merchandising rights to James Dean's persona, securing an award of defense costs, including attorneys' fees, in excess of $1.6 million.

As former outside counsel to CMG Worldwide, an international sports and entertainment licensing and business agency, Dean has represented the families and estates of numerous celebrities such as James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Humphrey Bogart and Babe Ruth. He has also represented legendary NASCAR champion, Bill Elliott. Dean has successfully pursued infringements of celebrity rights nationally and internationally, including infringements in England, Japan, Spain and Australia.

He is a frequent speaker on issues relating to effective discovery techniques and motion practice in the defense of chemical manufacturers. Before the law, Dean was a professional tuba player and taught at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida.

Honors

The Best Lawyers in America, 2011-2019

Indiana Super Lawyers, 2004-2008, 2010-2016

Martindale-Hubbell, AV Preeminent

Professional and Community Involvement

Member, Defense Research Institute

Member, Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana

Member, American Bar Association

Member, Seventh Circuit Bar Association

Member, Indiana State Bar Association

Member, Indianapolis Bar Association

EXPERIENCE
  • Barnes & Thornburg client Dow AgroSciences LLC (“DAS”) recently obtained a dismissal in a wrongful death action filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey against DAS and other defendants.

    The plaintiff’s state-court complaint alleged strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and loss of consortium relating to the manufacturing and sale of certain pesticides. Plaintiff also brought a survivor’s action which included claims of negligence and loss of consortium. On October 1, 2012, DAS filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the statute of limitations for the plaintiff’s claims against DAS had long expired. When filing her initial Complaint, the plaintiff had utilized New Jersey’s fictitious defendant rule and named ABC Company and John Does 1-100 as defendants, among others. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of New Jersey’s fictitious defendant rule, DAS also argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to relate her addition of DAS back to the date of the original Complaint.

    After filing the motion to dismiss and threatening plaintiff’s counsel with a motion for sanctions for their continuous pursuit of a frivolous cause of action in violation of New Jersey law, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss DAS with prejudice three days before the motion hearing in late October.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys defended The Valspar Corporation in a case brought by an over-the-road trucker who alleged he developed Reactive Airways Dysfunction Syndrome (RADS) when exposed to fumes from our client’s paint product, which leaked from 55-gallon drums plaintiff was hauling. The defendant proved that the steel drums had been reconditioned by a third-party, which had marked the drum according to its specification under the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) implementing the federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA). Granting Valspar’s motion for summary judgment, the Court found, that the defendant was “entitled to rely on the reconditioner’s mark when it accepted the drum in question and is not ultimately liable for any potential defects attributable to the reconditioner.” The Court held that the HMTA preempted all of Plaintiff’s claims. This case could set a precedent for future cases as it addressed and affirmed the preemptive effect of a shipper’s federal right to rely on the DOT specification markings on an allegedly defective container supplied by a third party. Plaintiff has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The decision is reported at Noffsinger v. The Valspar Corp., 2014 WL 3705176 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2014).
  • Barnes & Thornburg LLP represents Dow AgroSciences LLC and The Dow Chemical Company (Dow Defendants), in a personal injury lawsuit filed by the Gresser family in Tippecanoe Superior Court, Indiana, against the Dow Defendants and Reliable Exterminators, Inc. The Gressers purchased a home located in West Lafayette, Indiana, from New Chauncey Foundation, Inc., into which they moved in May 2001. Reliable Exterminators, Inc. is alleged to have treated the home with Dursban TC for termites in February 2000. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered from numerous personal injuries including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, sensory processing disorder, cognitive dysfunction and brain damage as a result of the alleged pesticide exposure, and were forced to vacate the home in June 2002. Plaintiffs’ causes of action include negligence and products liability claims alleging failure to warn and defective design and also punitive damages.

    The case was set for trial in October 2011 before Special Judge Robert Hall in Tippecanoe County, Indiana. On August 15, 2011, the Court granted the Dow Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims based on the Indiana Product Liability Act. On September 28, 2011, the Court granted the Dow Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages and also granted summary judgment based on preemption on the Plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567, 2011 WL 2472790 (June 23, 2011), reh’g denied, 2011 WL 3557247 (Aug. 15, 2011).

    On October 4, 2011, the trial court entered a final judgment under Rule 54(B) on behalf of the Dow Defendants. The case was appealed before the Indiana Court of Appeals and the clients prevailed.
  • Barnes & Thornburg represented Dow AgroSciences LLC (DAS) in a significant personal injury case pending in Federal District Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Court granted DAS’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of plaintiffs’ medical causation expert, Dr. Bennet Omalu, M.D., who opined that exposure to Dursban® pesticide products manufactured and sold by DAS caused a pesticide applicator, Robert Pritchard, to develop a form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (“NHL”). More specifically, Mr. Pritchard alleged that from 1982 through 2000 he repeatedly applied various forms of Dursban® in and around buildings and lawns, and was diagnosed with NHL in 2005. Plaintiffs proffered Dr. Omalu, a pathologist and medical examiner, to offer an expert opinion that Dursban® and its active ingredient, chlorpyrifos, can cause NHL (i.e., general causation) and did in fact Mr. Pritchard’s NHL (i.e., specific causation). DAS filed a Daubert motion to exclude Dr. Omalu’s opinions on medical causation, with extensive evidentiary materials, including affidavits from several defense experts. After extensive briefing and a day-long Daubert hearing on November 12, 2009, the Court granted DAS’ motion to exclude Dr. Omalu’s expert opinions. In a lengthy opinion that provided several alternative grounds for Dr. Omalu’s exclusion, Specifically, the Court ruled: (1) that Dr. Omalu’s opinions on general causation were inadmissible because Dr. Omalu’s reliance on and “reinterpretation” of a single epidemiology study was unreliable; (2) that Dr. Omalu’s opinions on specific causation likewise were unreliable and inadmissible due to his flawed methodology and inadequate analysis of other potential causes of Mr. Pritchard’s NHL; and (3) Dr. Omalu’s opinions were so speculative that they did not meet Daubert’s “fit” requirement. Since admissible expert testimony was required to meet the essential element of medical causation, Plaintiffs stipulated to entry of summary judgment so that they could move forward with an appeal. The Third Circuit affirmed on appeal. Pritchard v. Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 705 F. Supp. 2d 471 (W.D. Pa. 2010), aff'd, 430 Fed. Appx. 102 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 508 (2011).
  • Daniel Murchison purchased several containers of Dow’s “Great Stuff Gap & Crack Filler” for use in the renovation of his mother’s utility room, but did not read or follow the label instructions to extinguish all sources of ignition before using the product. The propellant vapors accumulated, were ignited by the water heater’s pilot light, and the resultant explosion and fire substantially damaged the residence. The Murchisons assigned their claims to State Farm who then sued Dow under the Louisiana Product Liability Act and the local fire department in negligence. Dow moved for summary judgment based on the express preemption provision of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and one additional state law ground. Rather than oppose the motion, State Farm dismissed its claims against Dow with prejudice.
  • DC Farms, a large commercial potato grower, alleged that aerial applications of Dow AgroSciences’ ForeFront® herbicide on nearby pastures in 2008 caused damages to its potato crops in 2008 and 2009 and prevented plaintiff from planting potatoes in 2010. Plaintiff alleged that ForeFront® was defectively designed for use in Southeast Idaho where potatoes are a prevalent crop and that Dow AgroSciences breached its duty to conduct appropriate testing of ForeFront® for use in that region. The Bingham County District Court granted Dow AgroSciences’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and held that plaintiff failed to allege a true design defect cognizable under Idaho law and that plaintiff’s claim of negligent testing is not recognized as a separate basis for products liability. Thereafter, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its complaint to cure its pleading defects.
  • Decedent's executor and individual plaintiffs asserted wrongful death and personal injury claims allegedly caused by application of Dursban® TC at condominium. Summary judgment granted and affirmed with the Appellate Court holding that plaintiffs' "fraud on the EPA" claims were barred and holding, "The insecticide in question is toxic, but that doesn’t make it defective[.]"
  • Dowd’s widow claimed that his fatal Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma was caused by his exposure to a number of “harmful and deleterious” chemicals at his workplace, including Dursban® L.O. Dow’s motion for summary judgment was granted over plaintiffs’ motion to conduct additional discovery and despite her experts’ medical causation opinions. The trial court was affirmed on appeal and the New Jersey Supreme Court denied certiorari.
  • In chronic myelogenous leukemia wrongful death case alleging long term exposure to diesel fuel used to dilute Dow herbicides, summary judgment granted and affirmed because plaintiffs' circumstantial evidence of decedent's exposure was insufficient to satisfy West Virginia substantive state law proximate cause requirements.
  • In putative nationwide RICO/product liability class action brought on behalf of all children allegedly exposed to Dursban® and all persons who suffered personal injuries or business or property damage from alleged exposures to Dursban, the principal allegation was that Dow had obtained and maintained the federal registration of its Dursban products through a pattern of fraud on the EPA. The court dismissed on the pleadings plaintiffs' RICO mail fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy claims, and dismissed plaintiffs' Lanham Act, "fraud on the EPA," fraudulent concealment, fraudulent omission, failure to warn, and express warranty claims.
  • Mint farmers alleged that their use of Goal® herbicide severely damaged their crops and sued for breach of contract, breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose, breach of oral guarantees, negligent verbal instructions on the use of the product, negligent research, violation of various state and federal statutes and regulations, gross negligence, and strict liability. The court granted Dow AgroSciences’ motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs’ breach of contract and warranty claims were barred by the product label’s UCC-compliant disclaimers and that plaintiffs’ own expert evidence proved that the statute of limitations had expired on all other remaining claims. Starr v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 339 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (D. Or. 2004).
  • Mr. Dockery was a commercial pesticide applicator and plaintiffs claimed he suffered a stroke, a heart attack, eye maladies, memory loss and multiple surgeries caused by his use of Dursban® TC. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for "fraud on the EPA," excluded plaintiffs' expert evidence on product defect and medical causation, and granted summary judgment.
  • Over 350 plaintiffs brought wrongful death and personal injury claims allegedly caused by the contamination of the air, water, and soil of Oahu by soil fumigants used decades before to control infestations of destructive nematodes in Oahu’s pineapple plantations. The court granted Dow’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims that making and selling the soil fumigants was an “ultra-hazardous activity” justifying imposition of strict or absolute liability, holding that “the manufacture of a product or substance will not be considered, as a matter of law, an ultra-hazardous activity.” Id. at 1144 (collecting authorities).
  • Over 350 plaintiffs brought wrongful death and personal injury claims allegedly caused by the contamination of the air, water, and soil of Oahu by soil fumigants used decades before to control infestations of destructive nematodes in Oahu's pineapple plantations. Dow moved for summary judgment. The court rejected plaintiffs' "fraud on the EPA" claims raised in opposition to Dow's motion and granted partial summary judgment, later amended to complete summary judgment.
  • Plaintiff alleged that her claimed brain damage, neuropathies, and other personal injuries were caused by regular applications of a Dursban®-containing product at her workplace. Plaintiff and her medical causation experts, however, could not distinguish between her alleged personal injuries which she sustained outside the statute of limitations and those which were allegedly timely asserted. Summary judgment granted and affirmed.
  • Plaintiff alleged that she moved into a house recently treated with Dursban® TC and suffered acute and chronic effects including nausea, vomiting, asthma, reactive airways disease, visual problems, loss of hearing, loss of memory and intellectual impairment, muscular impairment, pain, scars, neurologic, pulmonary, hematologic, immune system, gastrointestinal, dermal, emotional and mental injuries caused by her alleged exposures. During the time she lived in the house, her dog died, which she also attributed to exposure to Dursban TC. The district court granted Dow’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff’s “fraud on the EPA” claims. And, beyond applying an express federal preemption analysis later superseded by Bates v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), the court sustained Dow’s objections to plaintiff’s expert opinion evidence and alternatively held “that Plaintiff’s claims of unreasonably dangerous design... fail based on an utter lack of admissible evidence,” adding, “Based on the utter lack of admissible evidence brought forth on this issue, this claim must fail.” The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding, “There is insufficient evidence that Dow failed to meet government standards, industry standards, or consumer expectations in its production and sale of Dursban.” The Supreme Court denied certiorari.
  • Plaintiff alleged that Wilson Air applied Grandstand® R, a Dow AgroSciences herbicide, to rice fields near plaintiff’s tree plantation, that the product drifted onto its plantation, and that it destroyed over 130 acres of cottonwood and 54 acres of hardwood trees. Plaintiff sued Dow AgroSciences alleging negligent failure to provide “detailed and specific cautions, instructions and warnings . . . for the safe application of the product to rice fields adjacent to, or near, tree plantations,” negligence in “designing, researching, testing, formulating and inspecting Grandstand R before marketing same,” “fraud on the EPA,” “misbranding” in violation of FIFRA, strict product liability for design defect and warning defect, breach of express warranty, absolute liability for selling “an inherently dangerous and ultrahazardous product,” and for punitive damages “in the amount of at least $500,000.00.”

    Dow AgroSciences moved for summary judgment on all claims made against it and plaintiff filed its motion for voluntary nonsuit dismissing Dow AgroSciences shortly after oral argument was heard on that motion.
  • Plaintiff was cleaning out a garage and discarded a long-expired 16 oz. aerosol can of Dow’s “Great Stuff Big Gap Filler” when it allegedly spontaneously exploded, propelling its bottom plate into her gloved right hand with such force that it allegedly broke bones and caused permanent nerve damage. Dow moved for summary judgment on the grounds that its DOT-2Q specification container met all the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (“HMTA”) and the DOT’s own regulations and that, therefore, all of plaintiff’s claims were expressly preempted by the HMTA; that plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claims were preempted a second time by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”); and that plaintiff’s claims failed on state law grounds. Although the Court’s Order began by stating that the federal preemption arguments were moot because plaintiff’s claims failed for state law reasons, the Court nevertheless decided the preemption issues and held that plaintiff failed to present any evidence of Dow’s noncompliance with the HMTA or the FHSA, it rejected plaintiff’s anti-preemption arguments, and it entered summary judgment for Dow accordingly.
  • Plaintiff worked as a commercial pesticide applicator and alleged that his exposures to Dursban® caused him to become permanently and totally disabled. Dr. Gunnar Heuser diagnosed his alleged severe chronic fatigue, pain, impaired memory, cognitive function, balance and coordination, abnormal brain scan, low sperm count, and total and permanent disability as caused by his alleged exposures. Trial court dismissed the claims against Dow based on the statute of limitations; the California Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiff's appeal and denied plaintiff's motion to vacate that dismissal. Anstrom v. Dow Chem. Co., No. B198978 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007).
  • Plaintiff, a Kentucky farmer, alleged that the application of Dow AgroSciences' ForeFront® herbicide on his land caused crop losses and other damages in excess of $2.5 million, and alleged that Dow AgroSciences breached its implied warranties of fitness and merchantability with respect to ForeFront®, that the product was negligently and carelessly manufactured, that Dow AgroSciences negligently and carelessly failed to warn the consuming public of the product's risks, and he supported his claims with putative expert opinions. Summary judgment granted in Dow AgroSciences' favor and against the Plaintiff on all of his claims.
  • Plaintiff’s physician diagnosed his toxic neurotropy, nerve damage, leg weakness, liver problems, tremors, and nausea as caused by his alleged prolonged exposure to Dursban®. The district court granted Dow AgroSciences’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for negligence, breach of implied warranty, fraud and misrepresentation, strict products liability, and his claim for redhibition as to his personal injuries. Barrette v. Dow AgroSciences, L.L.C., 2002 WL 31365598 (E.D. La. Oct. 18, 2002).
  • Plaintiffs alleged that a child's cerebral palsy, neurodevelopmental delay, and neurological deficits were allegedly attributable to multiple in utero and post natal exposures to Dursban® L.O. Notwithstanding these allegations, Court granted summary judgment for Dow, finding no design defect and holding "Balancing the utility of the product against its risks, the Court finds that its benefits outweigh its risks." Court also excluded the exposure/dose opinions of Richard Fenske, Ph.D., MPH, and the specific medical causation opinions of Dr. Cynthia Bearer because they relied on Dr. Fenske's opinions; granted summary judgment because plaintiffs lacked admissible evidence of medical causation; excluded evidence of 1995 settlement of EPA civil administrative complaint regarding adverse effect reporting and evidence of June 2000 agreement with EPA to phase-out certain uses of chlorpyrifos-based products; and denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and confirmed that plaintiffs' medical causation evidence was inadmissible. See 2008 WL 5191865 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 3, 2008); 2008 WL 5142193 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 3, 2008); 2008 WL 51421788 (S.D. Iowa Aug. 15, 2008); 2008 WL 5383845 (S.D. Iowa Dec. 22, 2008).
  • Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Romah’s aplastic anemia, respiratory problems, partial paralysis and other injuries were caused by long-term exposure to Dursban® 2E regularly applied at his workplace. Court excluded the medical causation expert testimony of Plaintiffs’ forensic toxicologist and their oncologist/hematologist and granted summary judgment. Romah v. Hygienic Sanitation Co., No. G.D. 87-22370 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pls. Sept. 10, 2001).
  • Plaintiffs alleged that Ms. Weir's hyperactive airways disease, multiple chemical sensitivity, and other injuries were caused by her exposure to Dursban® L.O. applied at her workplace. The trial court excluded the opinions of Plaintiffs' medical causation expert and granted summary judgment, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed both of those rulings on appeal. Weir v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 1687 WDA 2005 (Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 23, 2006).
  • Represented appellee in appeal of dismissal of toxic tort claim for want of prosecution.
  • Sixty-three Arkansas and Missouri cotton farmers sued more than a dozen national and regional formulators/distributors of 2,4-D-based herbicides and the 2,4-D active ingredients used in them alleging, inter alia, that due to the unique geological and meterological features of Northeastern Arkansas and Southeastern Missouri, those herbicides as customarily applied to rice fields had moved from the target application sites and had redeposited on plaintiffs’ cotton crops, causing many millions of dollars in crop losses. Plaintiffs sued under strict products liability, for violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and under theories of negligence in design, testing, and warning and instructions for use, misbranding under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and for punitive damages.

    A group of the defendant formulators/distributors filed third-party complaints against Dow AgroSciences as the alleged supplier of the 2,4-D manufacturing-grade active ingredients used in their products, and asserted claims for negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, contribution, and costs of defense. The trial court granted Dow AgroSciences’ motions and dismissed the third-party claims against it.

    Burns, et al. v. Universal Crop Protection Alliance, et al./Nufarm Americas Inc. & Albaugh, Inc. v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, No. CV-2009-51 (Ark. Cir. Ct. Aug. 13, 2010).
  • The widow of a Missouri state court trial judge claimed that his respiratory symptoms, shortness of breath, increased sensitivity to odor, dust and fumes, impaired concentration, fatigue, eye irritation, alleged pesticide poisoning, and ultimately fatal acute myelogenous leukemia were all caused by exposures to Dursban® Pro and another pesticide applied at the Macon County Courthouse. Twelve other courthouse employees alleged similar injuries (except leukemia) plus memory loss, chest pain, muscle aches and weakness, headaches, stomach cramps, diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, burning in mucous membranes, skin irritations, increased sensitivity to sunlight, lupus, tingling and numbness in extremeties, Reynaud’s syndrome, earaches, disrupted sleeping patterns, lethargy, dizziness, depression, neuropathies, excessive urination, blood disorders, muscle spasms, sensory deficits, blurred vision, liver damage, and mental and emotional pain.

    The court granted Dow AgroSciences’ motion for partial summary judgment, and granted Dow AgroSciences’ motion to compel plaintiffs to properly disclose the opinions of their experts, Richard Lipsey, Ph.D., Mohamed Abou-Donia, Ph.D., and Dr. Grace Ziem, and awarded monetary sanctions; Dow AgroSciences thereafter moved for case-terminating sanctions based on Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the court’s discovery orders. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Dow AgroSciences at the hearing on that motion.
  • Where child's fatal malignant ependymoma (a malignant brain tumor) was allegedly caused by multiple in utero and postnatal exposures to Dursban®, trial court excluded plaintiffs' medical causation expert evidence. Summary judgment granted and affirmed.
INSIGHTS & EVENTS
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.