Expert Neurologist And Real Estate Broker’s Opinions Excluded In Manganese Contamination Case

In a case in which plaintiffs allege a steel mill’s slag processing operations have resulted in dangerous levels of manganese being released onto their property, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio concluded yesterday that two of the plaintiffs’ proposed experts cannot testify.

First, the plaintiffs’ expert neurologist intended to testify that persons who resided full time in the “class area” for a period of ten years or more will suffer harm to their health caused by chronic exposure to elevated levels of manganese.  The court rejected this testimony on the grounds that it was conclusory, too broad and vague, and not based on any examination or testing.  The named plaintiffs, for example, each of whom had lived in the area for more than 10 years, do not currently present any symptoms of illness relating to any alleged manganese exposure.

Second, the court excluded the proposed testimony of a real estate broker who had never bought or sold a home within 100 miles of the class area.  His opinion was that the value of affected homes in the area would be reduced by 30 to 40%.  The court, in rejecting the testimony, explained: “[H]e did not survey the area, or consider the specifics of Plaintiffs’ house locations or neighborhoods, the ages or sizes of the houses or lots, or the quality of construction of the houses . . . He admits his appraisal is subjective, has ‘very little to do with . . . facts and figures,’ and cannot be ‘check[ed] for accuracy’ because ‘the value of real estate relies on emotion 90 percent of the time.'”