News Coverage
Supreme Court to hear DuPont petitions
Published June 26, 2003
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals decided Thursday to review two petitions filed by DuPont in the class action lawsuit regarding the presence of a manufacturing chemical known as C8 in local water supplies. The high court's action puts a halt to the timeline of the case, which was scheduled for trial in Wood County Circuit Court on Sept. 15. The court of appeals will hear oral arguments on DuPont's petitions Sept. 23.
"DuPont is pleased that the West Virginia Supreme Court has decided to review the rulings of the trial court and that we will be heard on the merits of the issues involved," said Kathy Forte, DuPont vice president of public affairs.
No substantive ruling was made by the court, just an agreement to hear arguments in two key issues. DuPont attorneys are challenging blood testing ordered by Judge George W. Hill for members of the class whose water has been contaminated by C8.
In the meantime, Washington County residents who are concerned about their level of exposure will have to wait for blood testing, which is expected to constitute some of the most compelling evidence in determining the case.
"Personally, I think DuPont should pay for blood testing," said Jennifer Whipkey of 619 Tenth St., Marietta. She's concerned even though Marietta's water system isn't affected by the chemical.
"I think the courts should make the company responsible and I think the testing should be expanded to include the surrounding area," Whipkey said.
Like many local people, Whipkey has become increasingly concerned about the quality of her drinking water since the January 2002 discovery of C8 in some local water supplies.
The find prompted a number of government investigations into the harmful health effects of the chemical scientists call PFOA.
DuPont has also moved to disqualify Hill from hearing the case, saying he has a potential economic interest as a member of the class.
In a hearing May 29, Hill insisted he would not be considered a member of the class as a Parkersburg resident.
DuPont's testimony has indicated that Parkersburg is not an area of significant exposure for the purposes of defining the class and those areas subject to contamination.
Four of the five Supreme Court justices agreed to hear the petition requesting a writ of prohibition that would remove Hill from the case. But, Justice Warren R. McGraw refused, noting that his position is that the lower court judge fully complied with the rule.
A third petition, filed Wednesday, was refused by the court when DuPont attorneys moved to disqualify one of the chief justices, Joseph P. Albright, because of a former association with the Parkersburg water district.
"DuPont is shameless in their willingness to try to manipulate the legal system to their advantage," said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based scientific research coalition.
Wiles said Thursday's decision, and the delay it will cause, is a temporary setback for the plaintiffs.
"It is outrageous that they won't test these people for the presence of this chemical," Wiles said. "They must perceive some powerful result that they don't want the court to see."