WASHINGTON-The Florida brain-cancer lawsuit that questioned the safety of cellular phones was dismissed May 17 by a federal court judge on grounds that the claim was not supported by adequate scientific research.
H. David Reynard of Madeira Beach filed a wrongful death lawsuit in late 1992 against cellular phone manufacturer NEC Corp. and service provider GTE Mobilnet of Tampa, alleging the cellular phone used by his wife contributed to her fatal brain tumor.
The case received exorbitant media attention after Reynard appeared on the high-profile TV program “Larry King Live.” The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association responded by decrying any relationship between cellular phone use and brain cancer. Industry sources pooled financial support and CTIA established the Wireless Technology Research L.L.C. to research the potential public health impact of wireless instruments and infrastructure equipment.
CTIA said the dismissal supported what the association has said all along-that the allegation is not based on scientific fact.
“This was the case that started it all and had the best chance,” said CTIA President Thomas Wheeler. “But the court threw out the suit on the very specific grounds that it represented junk science, not supported by accepted scientific or medical research.”
In dismissing the case and scrutinizing the admissibility of Reynard’s medical expert testimony, U.S. District Judge Ralph W. Nimmons Jr. looked to the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. The Daubert case involved two boys born with physical disabilities; both mothers had taken Merrell’s anti-nausea drug Bendectin during pregnancy. The courts struggled with the case for more than a decade because no reputable scientific study linked the federally-approved drug to birth defects.
The result is a new standard for accepting medical or scientific testimony in court. Reynard’s attorney, John Lloyd Jr. of St. Petersburg, Fla., said he thought the Daubert decision was going to give their case a greater chance. He cannot say yet whether they intend to appeal the dismissal.
“Daubert changed the whole system of considering expert testimony and it’s not a case we’re afraid of. It should be helpful, but the lower courts can have trouble working out what it means,” Lloyd said.
