Cases in Which Expert Testimony of Rea and/or Johnson Was Excluded
(Summaries provided by Timothy E. Kapshandy, J.D.)

In Brandon v. First Republicbank Group Medical Plan [No. CA-7-89-002 (Northern District, Texas, Nov 27, 1990], federal judge ruled that the services of Rea and Johnson were not medically necessary and therefore not coverable under an employee welfare benefit plan.

In Bradley v. Brown [No. CIV-H85-958, 1994 WL 199827, Northern District, Indiana, May 17, 1994) affirmed, No. 94-2467, 7th Circuit, Dec 13, 1994], Two federal courts excluded testimony of Rea and Johnson. The trial court found their methodology anecdotal and speculative. Regarding the general concept of MCS, the court held that scientific knowledge about its etiology has not progressed from hypothesis to knowledge capable of assisting the jury.

In Hundley v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. [No. 91C 6127, N.D. Ill. Jan 31, 1996], the court excluded the opinions of Rea and Johnson that plaintiff's one-time exposure to herbicides at a railyard was the cause of his MCS.

In Mullenax v. McRae's. [No. 87-13915-D-3130, Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission, March 18, 1993], the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission denied a claim that MCS that workplace exposure to solvents in art supplies had caused MCS. The Commission concluded that Rea's unorthodox methodology did not establish causal connection, and that even if they were to accept the theory that exposure to one chemical can cause multiple chemical sensitivities, other legitimate explanations were not excluded.

In Phillips v. Velsicol Chemical Corporation [No. 93-CV-140-J, District of Wyoming, Sept 19, 1995]. plaintiff, a percussionist with the Hong Kong Philharmonic Orchestra, alleged MCS symptoms had resulted from a single pesticide exposure in a concert hall. Rea's opinion about the harmful effects of chlordane on the plaintiff by "double-blind" tests was deemed irrelevant for lack of specifically identifying chlordane in the alleged incident in the concert hall.

In Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis [No. C14-91-00795-CV, App. 14th Div., Texas, Dec 31, 1992] The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the $12.6 million judgment for a plaintiff who alleged that a one-time exposure to diazinon had caused delayed neurotoxic effects. The appeals court held that the methodology of plaintiff's experts (Johnsonand two others) was speculative and not sufficiently validated to establish a causal connection.

In Summers and Potts v. Missouri Pacific Railroad System [No. 94-468-P, U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Oklahoma, Aug 25, 1995], railroad employees alleged they had developed chemical sensitivity and brain damage from short-term exposure to diesel exhaust fumes. The court excluded Johnson's testimony on the basis that the MCS hypothesis was unproven. The court also found his efforts to distinguish plaintiff's alleged "chemical sensitivity" from what was formerly called "multiple chemical sensitivity" unpersuasive.