One Hour With Lemuel Srolovic - Extent & Reality

The Lead Investigator for Acreage Brain Cancer Victims Speaks

Nov 2, 2009

This is part two of an interview with Mr. Srolovic. Here he discusses the limitations, expectations, and realities involved in Toxic Tort cases.

As the Lead Investigator for Weitz & Luxenberg, the firm mounting the research and potential lawsuit by residents of Royal Palm Beach, Loxahatchee and the Acreage in Palm Beach County, Florida, Lemuel "Lem" Srolovic wields great authority and power. This is the second part of an interview held on the morning of October 30th, 2009. Mr. Srolovic was kind enough to grant this audience in response to a request from citizens of the area. Weitz & Luxenberg is the firm with which Erin Brockovich is currently associated.

A Toxic Tort case occurs in an attempt to hold a company liable for damages in which it has caused illness or injury to individuals, either willfully or negligently, specifically through environmental contaminants.

Although Pratt and Whitney has for decades maintained a manufacturing plant not far from this area, no direct evidence has been found to date in this matter indicating any wrongdoing on their part or linking them to any cause of harm to these residents.

(Suite101) If you were to stereotype, how would you say most cases of this type go?

(Srolovic) Well I try not to stereotype. ...What usually ends up happening in a toxic tort case is pretrial fact discovery and pretrial motion practice, like the defendant asking the court to dismiss the case outright, which is sometimes granted, but...very often is denied. [Then there is] most often further refinement of the facts as they concern the culpable conduct of the defendant and the injuries [of the plaintiffs]. Settlement of the dispute involving payment to the defendants is the most typical resolution of cases of this type. The Hinkley...toxic tort cases were tried to verdict, but [this is] relatively uncommon because of the time and expense, and because of the defendant's liability, and to avoid setting precedent in my judgment. In my experience, this is a common motivator, they don't want to establish a precedent. They don't want a jury to decide their conduct or product is harmful.

Well-founded Understanding of Radiation

(Suite101) Is it rational to expect that there should be a -0- level of radiation in the environment, considering that some forms of radiation are going to be present no matter what? For example, solar radiation exists which can then create radiation fog, but which is harmless.

(Srolovic) I'm not familiar with radiation fog, but I wouldn't say solar radiation is harmless. Look at skin cancer.

(Suite101) I apologize, I was not clear. Radiation fog is a common occurrence in South Florida, mostly in winter after a very wet spell, and it is the fog which is harmless.

(Srolovic) Let me repeat what I said Thursday [the day we held the community meeting], and that is this: based on the consideration of health effects and potential health effects, the US EPA recommends that there is no radiation in drinking water. They are charged with establishing standards for public drinking water of a certain size population. They are mandated by Congress to look at the science, at the contaminants in water, at what should be the amount of contaminants in water that protects human health with a margin of safety. This is called the MCLG, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal. Then Congress said because there is a certain amount of contaminants that may be very expensive or technologically not feasible to remove, they set a reasonably applicable standard of MCL [Maximum Contaminant Level] as close to the health based goal as is possible. It takes into account [that] the level of radiactive material in the MCLG is -0-. The [fact that] the MCL is above -0- reflects a policy judgment that reflects the level that is legally applicable in this country. That level establishes what should be in drinking water. It does not reflect ambient sun, earth, or star radiation.

Limitations of Case Studies

(Suite101) How in depth will your tests be? Only that which is necessary to provide evidence for the case, or will you go farther, considering the non-static and constantly moving nature of the Floridans in South Florida?

(Srolovic) I'm a lawyer and there is an intersection between law and science in environmental law. Toxic torts have to be supported by sound science so our task is to develop sufficient and sound science that would support sound redress. That's what we do.

The copyright of the article One Hour With Lemuel Srolovic - Extent & Reality in Law is owned by Tammy Bergen. Permission to republish One Hour With Lemuel Srolovic - Extent & Reality in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.