US Court Throws out Cellphone Cancer Case
The USA's 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court decision to throw out a US$800 million lawsuit against several mobile phone manufacturers and networks. Dr. Christopher J. Newman used a cellular telephone manufactured by Motorola. from October 1992 until he was diagnosed with brain cancer in March 1998. During that time Dr. Newman says that he spoke on the telephone for approximately 343 hours, typically holding the phone next to his right ear with the antenna retracted. Dr. Newman claimed in his court case that his use of a cellular phone, and specifically his exposure to radiofrequency radiation, caused his malignant brain tumor.
Dr. Newman and his wife sued Motorola and other defendants on August 28, 2000. The parties conducted discovery and designated experts on the issues of general and specific causation. At the conclusion of discovery, each side filed a motion to exclude the other's proffered expert testimony. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing from February 25 to March 1, 2002, after which it concluded that the Newmans had not proffered any reliable or relevant evidence to support either general or specific causation. The court therefore granted the defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of all of the Newmans' experts on causation.
Because this ruling left the Newmans with no admissible evidence on causation, the district court then granted summary judgment to the defendants.
Most significantly, the district court observed that one of the expert witnesses, the scientist, Dr. Lennart Hardell research fails to show that users of cellular phones face an increased risk for developing malignant brain tumors. Although Dr. Hardell testified that his research shows an increased risk for developing brain tumors generally, he achieved this result only by considering the occurrence of a particular subtype of benign tumors, specifically, benign acoustic neurinomas. The district court questioned the relevance of research linking the use of cellular phones to the development of acoustic neurinomas because Dr. Newman does not have an acoustic neurinoma; he has a malignant astrocytoma. The district court also questioned the reliability of Dr. Hardell's research because it failed to demonstrate a dose-response relationship, that is, it failed to show that with greater use of cellular phones, a person faced a greater risk of developing a tumor. Showing a dose-response relationship is, as Dr. Hardell agreed, an important factor in establishing causation.
In short, Dr. Hardell's testimony faced problems of both relevance and reliability, as the district court determined, hence the dismissal of the court action."
Posted to the site on 24th October 2003
