Underscoring the importance of reliable expert methodology, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the dismissal of a personal injury suit based on unreliable expert testimony. See Henry v. St Croix Alumina, Inc., Nos. 12-1844 and 12-1845 (3d Cir. July 10, 2014). Appellants were Virgin Island residents who alleged physical harm and emotional distress caused by the escape of “red dust” contaminants from an Alcoa Inc. refinery during a hurricane.

The district court held that Appellants’ proposed scientific experts did not employ a peer-reviewed or generally accepted methodology with a known rate of error and were therefore not reliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The court granted summary judgment to Alcoa, finding that Plaintiffs could not establish causation because their experts did not offer any reliable testimony as to the amount and toxicity of any “red dust” that came into contact with the residents. The experts’ testimony had focused on the amount of red mud that escaped from the refinery, and their conclusions that the red mud was a large component of the red dust that allegedly caused Plaintiffs’ injuries. The court found that the experts’ testimony regarding the pH and toxicity was not relevant as it pertained only to the red mud, not red dust. The Third Circuit affirmed the orders of the district court, finding it could not permit Appellants to proceed to trial without any reliable expert testimony regarding the toxicity of the substance that allegedly injured the Plaintiffs.