Illustrating the difficulty in pursuing a multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) claim, a New York appeals court upheld dismissal of Plaintiff’s toxic tort claim because he failed to establish a causal link between chemical exposure and his symptoms. See Abrams v. Related, L.P., 2016 BL 91070 (N.Y. App. Div. March 24, 2016).

Plaintiff alleged personal injuries from exposure to fumes emanating from a flooring adhesive used in an adjacent apartment. In upholding the trial court’s grant of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court held that Plaintiff, by failing to identify his expert witnesses as required, was unable to prove general or specific causation linking the adhesive and his alleged injuries. The Court also held that, even if Plaintiff had timely designated his expert witnesses, he still did not establish general causation connecting this adhesive to MCS, nor did he connect his exposure to the adhesive to his illness. Defendants, on the other hand, offered expert affidavits “stating that [MCS] is not a scientifically or medically recognized condition, that a causal connection between MCS and chemical exposure has not been accepted in the scientific community, and that [Plaintiff’s] level of exposure to chemicals in [the adhesive] could not have caused his claimed illness.” Slip op. at *117.

This blog was prepared with the assistance of Lynne Howard.