## Facts

- Survivors of two Witco chemical-plant employees alleged workplace exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) caused the employees’ fatal colon cancer.
- Monsanto supplied PCB heat-transfer fluids used at the plant and was the principal appealing defendant.
- Plaintiffs sought to prove specific medical causation mainly through Dr. Earl Balis, a Ph.D. biochemist and cancer researcher.
- Dr. Balis based his causation opinion on scientific literature, including publications suggesting PCBs are carcinogenic, though the connection to human colon cancer was disputed.
- Defendants challenged both Dr. Balis’s qualifications to opine on human cancer causation and the scientific reliability of his theory, arguing it was not generally accepted.

## Issues

1. Whether toxic-tort expert testimony on cancer causation must satisfy a “general acceptance” standard (accepted by at least a substantial minority of the relevant scientific community) to be admissible in New Jersey.
2. Whether an expert causation opinion grounded in scientific literature and reasoning, but lacking broad scientific consensus, may be admitted under a more flexible reliability analysis.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held that, in toxic-tort cases involving complex and developing science, lack of “general acceptance” is not dispositive of admissibility.
- The Court ruled the trial court was too restrictive in excluding the causation testimony solely because it was not generally accepted, and that summary judgment was therefore improper.

## Legal Principles

- In toxic-tort litigation, admissibility of expert causation testimony turns on scientific reliability rather than rigid satisfaction of a general-acceptance threshold.
- Trial courts must assess the soundness of the expert’s methodology, including the quality and quantity of data relied upon and the logical connection (“fit”) between the data and the conclusion.
- Peer-reviewed literature and recognized scientific methods, including epidemiological, toxicological, animal, and mechanistic evidence, may support admissibility even if the evidence is not conclusive.
- Courts must balance openness to scientifically grounded developing theories with rigorous exclusion of speculative opinions through careful gatekeeping focused on reliability.

## Conclusion

The court held that toxic-tort plaintiffs are not required to prove that an expert’s specific causation theory has achieved general acceptance before the testimony can be heard; instead, admissibility depends on a flexible, case-specific evaluation of methodological reliability, warranting remand for reconsideration under that approach.


Rubanick v. Witco Chem. Corp., 593 A.2d 733 (N.J. 1991)