ATRA Files Comments with EPA, Questions Credibility of Asbestos Risk Assessment Coalition
ATRA joined others in voicing objection to the EPA’s inclusion of certain experts in its evaluation of asbestos risk.
ATRA joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others in filing comments this week with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, voicing objection to the EPA’s inclusion of certain experts on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) and TSCA SACC Ad Hoc Peer Reviewers for the March 2020 Draft Risk Evaluation for Asbestos.
The EPA opted to include individuals on these committees who also serve as paid experts for asbestos plaintiffs’ law firms, spouting opinions which have routinely been rejected by courts as not having a scientific basis. The report will negatively impact asbestos personal injury trials by providing a platform for plaintiff’s attorneys and experts to put forth the “any exposure theory.”
We are disappointed the EPA chose to include a number of highly compensated experts for plaintiffs in asbestos personal injury cases and that they have excluded any testifying experts with differing opinions from both the SACC and Ad Hoc Peer Reviewers.
Given that this process has the potential to impact the risk evaluation in asbestos litigation, the reviewers ought to be credible, fair, and balanced.
ATRA files amicus brief in support of Johnson & Johnson’s decision to appeal a 2019 $465 million judgment against the company, warning against the state attorney general’s expansive use of public nuisance law.
ATRA President Tiger Joyce spoke with Juliette Farley of the Southern California Record about Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week and business interruption lawsuits.
ATRA urges SCOTUS to push back the on overly expansive approaches to jurisdiction shown by courts in Minnesota and Montana.
ATRA reports North Carolina attorney general candidates’ inaction on transparency code pledge.