--- title: "Environmental Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Impact of PCBs" meta: "og:description": "The environmental expert was allowed to opine on industry standards because her testimony did not constitute impermissible legal conclusions" "og:title": "Environmental Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Impact of PCBs" author: "Expert Witness Profiler" description: "The environmental expert was allowed to opine on industry standards because her testimony did not constitute impermissible legal conclusions" --- # Environmental Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Impact of PCBs Posted on April 27, 2026 by Expert Witness Profiler The Burlington School District (“BSD” or “Plaintiff”) commenced this action after discovering polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) at Burlington High School (“BHS”). Defendants Monsanto Co., Solutia, Inc., and Pharmacia LLC (collectively “Monsanto” or “Defendants”) are allegedly successors to the old Monsanto company, which was the primary manufacturer of PCBs in the United States for several decades. BHS was constructed in the 1960s, and testing recently revealed the presence of PCBs in its buildings. The BSD concluded that because of PCB contamination, BHS had to be demolished. Defendants filed a motion to exclude all testimony of Plaintiff’s experts [Wendy Pearson](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Wendy-Pearson/1574419) and [Robert A. Wanat](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Robert-Wanat/1545394). ## **Environmental Expert Witness** [Wendy N. Pearson](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Wendy-Pearson/1574419) is a licensed engineer who has worked at Matson & Associates for over 25 years. Pearson has bachelor’s and master’s degrees in civil engineering and environmental science and engineering. She has also conducted peer-reviewed research relating to environmental contamination, chemical manufacturing industry standards and practices, and chemical releases from manufacturing and industrial facilities. [Discover more cases with Wendy Pearson as an expert witness by ordering her comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1574419&pId=3). ## **Chemistry Expert Witness** Dr. [Robert Adam Wanat](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/expert-witness/Robert-Wanat/1545394) holds an M.S. and a Ph.D. in chemistry from Cornell University. He has more than 30 years’ experience working for major chemical companies overseeing research and development of various chemical products. Since 2018, he has owned his own consulting company which specializes in the development, manufacture, and application of polymers, plastics, materials, and adhesives. [Want to know more about the challenges Robert Wanat has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/order/add?eId=1545394&pId=3). ## **Discussion by the Court** ### **I. Monsanto’s Knowledge** Defendants first argued that opinions about what Monsanto should have known should be excluded. Their contention is that these witnesses’ testimonies about the environmental impacts of PCBs — based in part on information from Monsanto’s own archives — are “mere pronouncements” based on “subjective or speculative opinions” and would constitute a subjective interpretation “based on nothing more than a review of decades-old documents.” Pearson reviewed the state of the science related to PCBs over several decades, beginning in the 1930s. Pearson also explained the chemical nature of PCBs and what was known about their dangers. She did offer opinions about what Monsanto could have done to expand its knowledge. Those opinions are based on studies that were known in the scientific community and, in certain instances, by Monsanto itself. As a result, the Court found that Pearson’s testimony is not based on speculation. Nor did it constitute merely subjective narrations. Instead, they appeared to be supported by a substantial documentary record that provided a foundation for their opinions.  Wanat’s report is similarly supported. He will testify about chemical evaporation generally, and with respect to PCBs specifically. He will also reference Monsanto’s documents, including patents and technical bulletins. ### **II. Standard of Care** Defendants next argued that Pearson’s and Wanat’s opinions regarding industry standards cannot be admitted because they are not supported by sufficient facts, are not based on any methodology, and constitute improper legal conclusions. Pearson intended to testify that Monsanto defined its own standard of care and failed to live up to that standard. Wanat’s report is more limited, citing Monsanto’s adherence to American Conference of Government Hygienists thresholds. The Court questioned whether the materials in question establish a standard of care, or whether they instead constitute general statements of corporate responsibility. Regardless of the distinction, the Court found no reason to exclude the testimony of either Pearson or Wanat, insofar as their testimony is based on Monsanto’s own statements about its responsibilities. Defendants’ final argument is that testimony about the standard of care consisted of improper legal conclusions and stood in the shoes of the jury. Here, Plaintiff submitted that Wanat will use the term “reasonable” in its “ordinary, non-legal sense.” Defendants have not identified an element of a pending cause of action that would render the term “reasonable” an impermissible legal conclusion. Consequently, the Court declined to bar such testimony. ## **Held** The Court denied Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Wendy Pearson and Robert Wanat. ## **Key Takeaway** To determine when a question posed to an expert witness calls for an improper legal conclusion, the district court should consider first whether the question tracks the language of the legal principle at issue or of the applicable statute, and second, whether any terms employed have specialized legal meaning. ## **Case Details:** --- ## **You Might Also Like** ![Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Historic Losses](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-27T195437.372.jpg) [**Economics Expert Allowed to Opine on Historic Losses**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/environmental-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-impact-of-pcbs/economics-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-historic-losses)![Environmental Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Impact of PCBs](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-27T143043.781.jpg) [**Environmental Expert Was Allowed to Opine on the Impact of PCBs**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/environmental-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-impact-of-pcbs/environmental-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-impact-of-pcbs)![Crisis Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Corporate Behavior](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-24T211020.013.jpg) [**Crisis Management Expert Allowed to Opine on Corporate Behavior**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/environmental-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-impact-of-pcbs/crisis-management-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-corporate-behavior)![Accident Reconstruction Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Safety of the Seat Heater](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-24T010518.338.jpg) [**Accident Reconstruction Expert Not Allowed to Opine on the Safety of the Seat Heater**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/environmental-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-impact-of-pcbs/accident-reconstruction-expert-not-allowed-to-opine-on-the-safety-of-the-seat-heater)![Maritime Expert Allowed to Opine on Safety Standards](https://ewp-blog.expertwitnessprofiler.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/blog-pic-640X480-2026-04-24T004329.589.jpg) [**Maritime Expert Allowed to Opine on Safety Standards**](https://expertwitnessprofiler.com/environmental-expert-was-allowed-to-opine-on-the-impact-of-pcbs/maritime-expert-allowed-to-opine-on-safety-standards)