Opinion ID: 779089
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs' Evidence of Official Reassurances

Text: 51 In opposition to this summary judgment motion, plaintiffs reiterated that the earliest they could reasonably have known that the Pfohl Landfill caused their cancers was December 1994, when they received the preliminary findings of the Rigle-Sawyer Report stating that persons frequenting that vicinity had an increased risk of developing cancers, including cancers of the types suffered by plaintiffs and their decedents, because of the toxic wastes stored at the Landfill. Plaintiffs argued that although local citizens had theretofore questioned various governmental entities as to whether the Landfill wastes were carcinogenic, they had invariably received assurances that the area was safe. As summarized by plaintiffs' attorney, 52 prior to December of 1994, not a single expert advised residents, workers, or others that the Pfohl Brothers Landfill had caused a higher incidence of cancer in the area surrounding the landfill. To the contrary, the experts that the plaintiffs/residents counted on for answers to their health questions — the New York State Department of Health — affirmatively stated that the landfill was not responsible for any health problems in the area. 53 (Affidavit of Laura J. Van Pelt dated December 19, 1997 (Van Pelt Aff.), ¶ 3, at 3.) 54 In support of these assertions, plaintiffs submitted, inter alia, the affidavit of former DOH official Dr. James M. Melius, M.D., who had been the Director of DOH's Division of Occupational Health and Environmental Epidemiology from 1988 to 1995 and had supervised the preparation of several DOH studies relating to the Pfohl Landfill. These included a 1991 health survey of residents and workers in the area surrounding the Landfill, a 1991 testing of the levels of lead in the blood of 20 children living in the area surrounding the Landfill, and the 1991 DOH Report on 1978-1987 Cancer Incidence (which, as noted in Part I.E.1. above, was relied on by defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment). 55 Dr. Melius stated that the health survey did not reveal any unusual patterns of reported illnesses among residents or workers. (Affidavit of Dr. James M. Melius dated December 17, 1997 (Melius Aff.), ¶ 4.) And at a March 1991 public meeting, Dr. Melius told the residents that the DOH's health survey did not reveal any general pattern of illness that could be related to exposure to chemicals from the Pfohl Brothers Landfill. ( Id. ¶ 8.) 56 As to the 1991 blood-lead-level study, Dr. Melius stated that it had revealed that the lead levels in the children's blood were very low, and DOH had concluded (a) that there was no way to determine whether such lead as was present resulted from exposure to the Landfill, and (b) that in any event, the sources of the lead were immaterial because the levels were so low as to give no cause for concern. ( Id. ¶ 2.) Dr. Melius also relayed this information to area residents at public meetings and in writing, making an effort to communicate to residents that there was no cause for concern with respect to the issue of children being exposed to lead from the Pfohl Brothers Landfill. ( Id. ¶ 3.) 57 As to the 1991 DOH Report on 1978-1987 Cancer Incidence, Dr. Melius stated that [t]he number of observed cancer cases among females was significantly greater than expected; however, much of the overall excess among females was attributable to the significant excess of breast cancers and a non-significant excess of lung cancers. ( Id. ¶ 5). Dr. Melius stated that he discussed these results with area residents at a public meeting held in March 1991 immediately after publication of the study results; that he told them that the observed excess of breast cancer cases may be due to income, socioeconomic factors, increased cancer screening activities, and personal lifestyle and medical history factors ( id. ¶ 7); and that neither he nor any other DOH employee in any way linked the excessive number of breast cancers to the Landfill: 58 I never told any member of the public, at this meeting or otherwise, that the significant excess of breast and prostate cancer cases was in any way related to the Pfohl Brothers landfill. To the best of my knowledge, no employee of the New York State Department of Health ever told any member of the public, at this meeting or otherwise, that the significant excess of breast and prostate cancer cases was in any way related to the Pfohl Brothers landfill. 59 7. At the March 1991 public meeting discussed in paragraph 6 above, I ... told the residents that there is almost no information available that indicates that breast cancer may be related to exposure to chemicals. 60 ( Id. ¶¶ 6-7 (emphases added).) Dr. Melius assured the residents that DOH would follow up on the cancer-incidence study to investigate the possible causes of the high incidence of prostate and breast cancers. 61 The promised reports on follow-up studies of cancer incidence were issued by DOH in November 1991, and none of them revealed any linkage with the Pfohl Landfill. Dr. Melius stated that [t]he follow-up study [on breast cancer] did not find a connection between breast cancer and the Pfohl Brothers Landfill because most of the women who had breast cancer had little reported potential exposure to contamination from the landfill. (Melius Aff. ¶ 9.) The follow-up study of prostate cancer likewise did not find a connection between prostate cancer and the Pfohl Brothers Landfill because no prostate cancer cases were located east of the Greater Buffalo International Airport, which is where the landfill is located. ( Id. ¶ 10.) In addition, DOH never found a statistically significant difference from the expected number of newly diagnosed cases for leukemia, lymphoma and female lung cancer. However, we examined the geographical distribution of these cancers because we were requested to do so.... We did not find a connection between leukemia, lymphoma or female lung cancer and the Pfohl Brothers Landfill because we did not find a clustering of any of these cancers around the landfill. 62 ( Id. ¶ 11 (emphasis added).) 63 Dr. Melius communicated these follow-up results to the public, both orally and in writing [a]s soon as they were available. ( Id. ¶ 12.) He also noted that 64 [a]t several public meetings that I attended in the early 1990's (both before and after the DOH health survey and cancer incidence results were announced), residents requested that homes near the Pfohl Brothers Landfill be bought by the State of New York. At each of these meetings, representatives of the New York State Departments of Health and Environmental Conservation (including myself) explained to the public that the State could not relocate residents unless there was documented evidence of a health threat, and that no such documented evidence existed. 65 ( Id. ¶ 13 (emphasis added).) Summarizing DOH's communications with the public as to the results of its many studies, Dr. Melius stated that 66 [w]hile I was the Director of the Division of Occupational Health and Environmental Epidemiology of the New York State Department of Health, I never told the public or any member thereof, at a meeting or otherwise, that any individual person's cancer, any particular type of cancer, any increased incidence of any particular type of cancer, or cancer in general was related in any way to the Pfohl Brothers Landfill. To the best of my knowledge, while I was the Director of the Division of Occupational Health and Environmental Epidemiology of the New York State Department of Health, no employee of the Department of Health ever told the public or any member thereof, at a meeting or otherwise, that any individual person's cancer, any particular type of cancer, any increased incidence of any particular type of cancer, or cancer in general was related in any way to the Pfohl Brothers Landfill. 67 ( Id. ¶ 15.) 68 Along with Dr. Melius's affidavit, plaintiffs submitted the reports and studies to which that affidavit referred. The Van Pelt affidavit also attached several other governmental reports, excerpts from more than a dozen depositions, and scores of news articles, including the following: 69 &#x2190; An October 26, 1989 article in the Cheektowaga Bee bearing the headline Radiation at Pfohl site not over limits and reporting that, although DOH warned that people should not pick up or take any objects from the site, DEC concluded, based on supplemental testing of the radiation level at the Landfill, that `the site does not represent an immediate radiological health hazard.' 70 &#x2190; A November 2, 1989 article in The Buffalo News (also attached to defendants' summary judgment motion) reporting that two studies concluded that the radiation risks to the area were minimal, and that elevated radiation readings were not being detected off the Pfohl Landfill site. 71 &#x2190; A March 30, 1990 article in The Buffalo News (also attached to defendants' summary judgment motion) bearing the headline State calls Pfohl dump no big risk and reporting that a DEC report to be made available that day stated that the Landfill contains radioactive hot spots, but that the levels are within safe limits, and that `exposure to radiation on the site presents little, if any, public health hazard.' The article stated that DEC minimized the exposure threat saying: 72 — Most of the materials are buried and exposure to radiation is therefore reduced due to the distance and shielding provided by the soil. 73 — Transport of surface radioactive material off the site by wind is unlikely because the site has heavy vegetation and is wet in many areas. 74 — Radioactivity found in samples of ground water, sediment and seepage is at normal background levels showing that radioactive materials are not migrating off the site. 75 The department did warn, however, that direct contact with radioactive materials should be discouraged and re-emphasized its warning that people should stay off the property. It has both fenced and posted signs warning of hazardous materials. 76 &#x2190; A November 15, 1990 article in The Buffalo News (also attached to defendants' summary judgment motion) bearing the headline No health threat found in Pfohl Road soil tests and stating that, according to DOH, 77 [s]cientists found no significant health threat from chemicals discovered in soil samples around homes south of the Pfohl Brothers dump.... 78 .... 79 Among the state's conclusions from the site in Cheektowaga are: 80 — There are no detectable levels of PCBs in the soil at the dump or off the site. 81 — Levels of dioxin and furans are only a fraction of the level necessary to require federal remedial action. 82 — Levels of heavy metal are within the expected range for suburban areas. 83 &#x2190; A March 26, 1991 article in The Buffalo News (also attached to defendants' summary judgment motion) with the headline Study finds higher cancer rate near Pfohl site, describing the 1991 DOH Report on 1978-1987 Cancer Incidence, including findings that [p]eople living near the Pfohl Brothers dump in Cheektowaga have exhibited higher than expected rates of breast and prostate cancer, and that there were higher than expected instances of lymphoma and leukemias, but not high enough to be classified as a `significant excess' statistically. The article cited Dr. Melius as stating that preliminary conclusions show ... the increase [in the incidence of breast and prostate cancer] is likely related to income, socioeconomic and status factors; that, based on the current, incomplete, information, `[i]t's unlikely it's related to chemical exposures'; and that `[w]e can't tell whether the landfill is responsible.' 84 &#x2190; A December 17, 1991 article in The Buffalo News with the headline Study can't link Pfohl landfill to cancer, reporting that state health officials' follow-up study of the higher-than-expected rates of cancers in the same census tract as the Landfill failed to uncover any evidence of `clustering' of prostate cancer, leukemia, lymphoma and female lung cancer near the inactive dump. 85 &#x2190; A December 26, 1991 article in the Cheektowaga Times with the headline Health Department studies fail to link landfill to cancer, reporting that [a]ccording to recent reports released by the New York State Department of Health, no link exists between the Pfohl Brothers Landfill site and cancer incidence for those residen[ts] living on or near the dump site. 86 &#x2190; A December 2, 1993 article in the Cheektowaga Times headlined Ground water uncontaminated near Pfohl dump and stating that [g]round water surrounding the Pfohl Brothers dump has turned up clean in all studies performed so far. 87 &#x2190; An August 1994 DOH report entitled, Summary of Cancer Inquiry for 1020 Rein Road, Cheektowaga, accompanied by a letter to residents of Cheektowaga stating that none of the patterns of a true cancer cluster were found.... No evidence was found for a common environmental cause. 88 &#x2190; An August 1994 assessment by the United States Department of Health and Human Services's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (USATSDR) of the Pfohl Landfill that the proposed Pfohl Brothers Landfill National Priorities List Site represents no apparent public health hazard at the present time because available data do not indicate exposures to contaminants in the environmental media to be high enough to cause adverse health effects. (Emphasis in original.) The USATSDR report also stated that [t]he results of NYSDOH's epidemiologic investigations, along with the lack of evidence of large scale exposure to site contaminants, indicates that the occurrence of cancer is probably not related to the site. 89 &#x2190; An August 26, 1994 article in The Buffalo News stating: Two studies by federal and state agencies refute charges that contamination from the Pfohl Brothers dump in Cheektowaga has caused serious health problems. 90 Plaintiffs also stated that although the Pfohl Landfill Cleanup Committee met with officials of DOH and DEC to seek information as to whether toxic materials were emanating from the Landfill, no more than one of the plaintiffs was a member of the group. ( See Van Pelt Aff. ¶ 5, at 5 n.4.) Further, plaintiffs argued that, even had they been members of such groups, they would have had no reason to know that the Landfill contents were carcinogenic because those groups received assurances from the State agencies that the Landfill was safe. For example, Cleanup Committee President and Chairperson Elinor Weiss testified in her deposition that at one meeting, DOH and DEC representatives told those present that the discovery of radioactivity at the [Landfill] was `not that important' because [the officials] `said that you could get more radiation from sleeping with your spouse than from standing on the Pfohl dump.' ( Id. ¶ 5, at 6 (quoting Deposition of Elinor Weiss at 24).) F. The Granting of Summary Judgment 91 In an order dated September 22, 1999, the district court accepted the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Foschio on the second summary judgment motion, see Pfohl II, 68 F.Supp.2d at 240-63 (reprinting and adopting Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated February 12, 1999), and granted, as to virtually all of plaintiffs' claims, defendants' motion to dismiss. The court found that plaintiffs had not show[n] ... that a material issue of fact exists as to the earliest time when they should have reasonably discovered the cause of their alleged injury making their claims timely under § 214-c(4) as modified by § 9658, Pfohl II, 68 F.Supp.2d at 251. 92 Noting that CPLR § 214-c(4) provides that if the action is not filed within three years of the date of discovery of the injury, the plaintiff is required to allege and prove that technical, scientific or medical knowledge and information sufficient to ascertain the cause of his injury had not been discovered, identified[] or determined prior to the expiration of the period within which the action or claim would have been authorized, 93 Pfohl II, 68 F.Supp.2d at 247 (quoting N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 214-c(4)), the court stated that plaintiffs were required to show that they filed their actions 94 within one year of the discovery of the causes of such injuries and ... that the state of medical, technological and scientific knowledge and information was insufficient such that it was not possible to discover the cause of their injuries within time to commence the instant actions within three years from the discovery of their cancers, 95 Pfohl II, 68 F.Supp.2d at 248. 96 As discussed in Part II.D. below, the court found that plaintiffs could and should have developed a reasonable suspicion that their cancers were caused by the Landfill by the end of 1991. Id. at 253. It found that the plethora of exhibits submitted by defendants, 97 consisting of government and media reports as well as other publicly available information pertaining to at least three citizen groups concerned with the effect of the Landfill on neighboring areas and residents, indicating that Plaintiffs should have developed a reasonable suspicion as to the cause of their injuries prior to the end of 1991. These exhibits establish that a highly publicized controversy existed within the local community over whether the Landfill posed a threat to the health and safety of those who resided or worked in the vicinity of the Landfill. 98 Id. (footnote omitted). Based on these exhibits, the court reiterated its view that the plaintiffs could reasonably have suspected the cause of their cancers by the end of 1991, stating that it was 99 more than reasonable that, given the volume of information available to the public prior to 1992, Plaintiffs could be expected to reasonably suspect the cause of their cancers before the end of 1991. The vast number of media and government reports Defendants submitted in support of summary judgment were all available prior to the end of 1991. 100 Id. at 254. 101 Noting plaintiffs' reliance on the Rigle-Sawyer Report's preliminary findings in December 1994 as their earliest reason to believe that the Landfill was the cause of their own and their decedents' injuries, the court found their reliance flawed because plaintiffs did not show that they could not have obtained such a report sooner: 102 Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence or any explanation as required under § 214-c(4) why it was not possible to obtain a scientific opinion similar to the one contained in the Rigle-Sawyer Report on which they rely in support of their contention that the FRCD occurred no earlier than December 1994, substantially prior to that date. The March and November 1991 DOH cancer incidence reports as well as the Rigle-Sawyer Report all compare the incidence of specific types of cancer diagnosed in persons who lived or worked near the Landfill with the expected incidence of similar types of cancer occurring within the general population. It is undisputed that the conclusions reached by the DOH reports issued in March and November 1991 and the Rigle-Sawyer Report differ as to whether any elevation in the incidence of any particular type of cancers occurring among those who lived or worked near the Landfill could be attributed to the hazardous and toxic substances known to have been deposited into the Landfill. A review of the February 1991 report [a DOH February 8, 1991 report based on water samples collected in October 1990, which concluded that the levels of hazardous and toxic substances detected in the residences was not sufficient to threaten human health, Pfohl II, 68 F.Supp.2d at 255] indicates that the DOH used different methods than Drs. Rigle and Sawyer to obtain specimens for the chemical analysis contained in those reports. Plaintiffs do not, however, contend that the findings contained in the Rigle-Sawyer Report are based on scientific testing techniques or statistical analysis that could not have been performed earlier than 1994. Nor do Plaintiffs deny [ sic ] that the Rigle-Sawyer Report does anything other than draw correlations between the incidence of reported cancers in the vicinity of the Landfill and the type of hazardous and toxic substances detected in the Landfill. In any event, if the Rigle-Sawyer Report is based on technical, scientific or medical knowledge developed after the dates of the earlier DOH study, Plaintiffs have not, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e), demonstrated it. 103 Pfohl II, 68 F.Supp.2d at 259 (emphases added). 104 On this basis, the court concluded that virtually all of plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. Judgment was entered on the dismissed claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); the claims not found untimely were severed from the consolidated proceedings and are not at issue on this appeal.