In the wake of the opinion, Monsanto has maintained that “Coghlan’s junk science on PCB exposure was central to the seven other adverse verdicts in this litigation,” and said the company “will seek their reversal based on the well-reasoned conclusion by the Erickson appellate court that it was error to admit Coghlan’s made-for-litigation calculations.”
“Rather than use available data on PCB exposure, that showed no exceedances of EPA health-protective levels, Mr. Coghlan contrived a calculation that produced higher PCB exposure estimates,” the company spokesperson said. “Moreover, the Erickson court also found that any causation testimony relying on Coghlan’s unreliable exposure methodologies should not have been admitted — another error that was repeated in all seven other cases.”
Jones, however, said the plaintiffs have construed this portion of the appellate court’s ruling more narrowly. The ruling still lets the expert testify students and staff were exposed to high levels of PCBs, he said, noting the inadmissable statements are just a small sliver of Coghlan’s roughly two days of testimony.
