Law Center Search Results

On June 23, 2025, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse an $816 million jury award following the trial court’s admission of unreliable scientific testimony. In this toxic tort case, the plaintiff alleges that he developed leukemia through exposure to benzene during his employment as a service station mechanic. During trial, the plaintiff’s expert witnesses failed to establish, as required under Pennsylvania law, that a specific level of exposure to benzene in gasoline caused the plaintiff’s condition. Our brief argues that the court’s failure to exclude these “no-safe-threshold” opinions was reversible error. Such opinions invite recovery for any exposure to an allegedly toxic substance, no matter how small or remote. Our brief also argues that despite overwhelming precedent rejecting the use of regulatory exposure standards in civil litigation, the plaintiff’s experts were able to improperly present governmental regulatory standards as evidence of causation. All manufacturers have an interest in keeping flawed scientific evidence out of court.