Litigation - Recent Cases.
Glazer v. Florida Power & Light

Leonard Glazer sued Florida Power & Light Co.(FPL) on January 20, 1994, alleging theories of negligence, wrongful death, nuisance, trespass, battery, strict liability, and ultrahazardous activity on behalf of himself and his deceased wife, Elsa. His current wife, Doris Stiles-Glazer, sued for loss of consortium.

After more than a year of discovery, FPL moved on March 23, 1995, for summary judgment as to all Elsa Glazer's claims because they were time barred. On September 28, 1995, FPL moved for summary judgement on the loss of consortium claim. It also challenged all of the remaining claims because plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies and because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over any of the claims. This motion showed that the Florida Legislature has delegated comprehensive regulatory authority over electric utilities to the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) [see Ch. 366 & Section 403.061(30), Fla. Stats. (1995)], and that the DEP had enacted rules governing magnetic fields. [Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-814.100 et. seq.] The motion argued that judicial resolution of plaintiffs' claims would interfere with this legislative regulatory scheme. FPL also moved for summary judgement as to the merits of plaintiffs' non-negligence theories.

On October 5, 1995, FPL filed a motion seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. James Kornberg, plaintiffs' only specific causation witness. FPL argued his opinion did not meet Florida's standards for allowing expert testimony. [Kornberg, an occupational medicine practitioner, is not a cancer specialist or board certified in hematology or oncology and has not treated leukemia, conducted any research in hematology, oncology, immunology, neurology, genetics, cellular biology, toxicology or epidemiology, or magnetic fields. He has not published his novel conclusion that magnetic fields cause cancer or advised any of his clients to mitigate exposure to 60 Hz magnetic fields. He was unable to identify a single, published scientific source holding that magnetic fields cause leukemia.] He had not performed the scientific analysis he acknowledged would be required to reach an opinion regarding causation and refused to say whether his opinion was generally accepted in the scientific community. By contrast, FPL's experts unanimously testified that the scientific/medical community has not generally accepted the theory that exposure to magnetic fields causes chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). Granting of that motion would have ended the case because plaintiffs have no other evidence that magnetic fields cause CML.

Plaintiffs Assert a New Theory: On October 6, 1995, just weeks prior to the then-scheduled trial, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to allege for the first time that they had been harmed by magnetic fields emanating from buried water pipes not owned or controlled by FPL. Case has been continued until mid-January 1996. The judge granted a motion to continue the case to allow further discovery. Trial was scheduled to begin Monday, October 23, 1995. The utility has until November 20th to respond to the amended complaint. A series of hearings is scheduled for November 14-17 on other pending motions.

Update, April 1996: On April 22, the judge granted FPL's motion to dismiss any claim based on the water line. Glazer's attorneys argued that magnetic fields produced by ground current flow on residential water lines had caused Glazer's illness and that the utility was responsible for it. Update, May 1996:On May 6th, Dade County 11th Circuit Court Judge W. Thomas Spencer dismissed the EMF personal injury case brought by Leonard Glazer, Coral Gables, against Florida Power & Light Co.(FPL). The decision was based in part on a determination that FPL was responsible for only a small percentage of the electric and magnetic fields present in the plaintiff's home. The judge granted summary judgment for the defendant because tests revealed that 90 percent of the EMF in Leonard Glazer's home was coming from water pipes and not the utility's transformers or power lines. The judge ruled that FPL has no duty to warn of a harmless level of radiation. On May 7, the Miami Herald newspaper ran a front page story on the ruling in its Local section. Glazer told the newspaper that he plans to appeal and that his most pressing goal now is to inform the public about potential health hazards from electric power facilities.

1 June 1995: FPL disclosed a list of expert witnesses and the expected subject matters on which they are expected to testify.

1 May 1995: Plaintiffs disclosed a list of expert witnesses and the subject matters on which they are expected to testify.

16 May 1994: Dade County Circuit Court Judge Maria Korvick denied a motion by FPL to dismiss the EMF cancer suit on grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction.

Summary: A complaint filed in Dade County 11th Circuit Court in January 1994 claimed that EMF exposure from a Florida Power & Light distribution line and transformer near the Coral Gables home of Leonard and Elsa Glazer led to Elsa’s death from complications of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) and to Leonard’s own diagnosis of CML. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Howard M. Talenfeld and Lawrence J. Marraffino of the Ft. Lauderdale and Boca Raton firm of Colodny, Fass & Talenfeld. FPL is represented by senior counsel, Edward P. Ahrens, Jr., with attorneys Alvin B. Davis and Brian R. Brattebo of the Miami and West Palm Beach firm of Steele, Hector & Davis and Carlos Alvarez of the Tallahassee firm of Hopping Green Sams & Smith.