From Dr. George Carlo, founder, Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.

From Dr. George Carlo, founder, Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.

"If there is even a reasonable possibility that cell phone radiation is carcinogenic, the time for action in the public health and regulatory sectors is upon us. Even though the financial and social cost of restricting such devices would be significant, those costs pale in comparison to the cost in human lives from doing nothing, only to discover thirty or forty years from now that the early signs were pointing in the right direction." 

Judge Frederick H. Weisberg

• These cases went to the U.S. Supreme Court and certiorari was denied in December 2005. The cases were remanded to the state courts and the present cases -- 13 -- are part of that remand group. 

• The litigation motions have been going back and forth between plaintiffs and the wireless industry since 2007.

• There have been other relevant decisions in the case on technical aspects:

◦ Claims based on phones used prior to 1996 when the Telecommunications Act (TCA) went into effect, are allowed in the litigation.

◦ Claims based on phones used after the TCA went into effect and compliant with the 1.6 W/Kg SAR standard, are pre-empted.

◦ Claims based on phones used after the TCA went into effect but with SAR about the standard, are allowed in the litigation.

• The litigation is bifurcated -- these orders have to do with which the Dyas/Frye test to determine which experts can testify in the next phases of the litigation. So, there are five experts who are approved to go forward for the next phase.

• The next phase is bifurcated as well: General Causation -- can cell phones cause brain cancer; Specific Causation -- did a particular phone cause a specific brain tumor in a specific plaintiff. 

• The next phase of discovery will be the first time that the industry has had to turn over data. No other litigation in the U.S. has gotten this far.