June 11, 2026
Ruiz, Eddie J.,
RALEIGH, N.C. – Federal judges overseeing the Camp Lejeune water contamination litigation issued three June 5 orders clarifying how expert causation testimony will be screened and how damage awards may be reduced by certain government benefits.
The rulings, entered in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina as Docket Entries 884, 885 and 886, address disputes between plaintiffs and the federal government over the Camp Lejeune Justice Act’s causation standard, the timing of expert disclosures and statutory offsets for benefits paid through qualifying federal programs.
The cases are proceeding under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 (CLJA), which allows individuals exposed to contaminated drinking water at the base between 1953 and 1987 to seek damages from the federal government.
Federal Judges Clarify Expert Testimony Standards
In the expert testimony order[1], the court declined to impose broad expert exclusions at this stage based on their use of the CLJA’s “at least as likely as not” causation standard. The government argued that plaintiffs’ experts improperly folded the relaxed legal burden into their scientific analyses, while plaintiffs argued that certain government experts should be excluded for failing to apply that statutory standard.
The judges held that the CLJA’s burden of proof does not relax the admissibility requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Expert opinions must still be reliable, relevant, based on sufficient facts or data and grounded in reliably applied scientific methods. The court noted that accepted toxic tort tools such as epidemiological evidence, the Bradford Hill framework and weight of the evidence analysis may support general causation opinions when properly applied.
Rather than exclude specific opinions across the board, the court denied the government’s motion without prejudice, denied the plaintiffs’ motion and directed the parties to submit a joint proposed order identifying the opinions affected by the ruling. The court also rejected a broad Rule 704 challenge, explaining that a general causation opinion framed around the CLJA standard is not necessarily an improper legal conclusion.
Court Upholds Sanctions Related to Expert Disclosures
A separate order[2] affirmed a magistrate judge’s decision striking portions of government expert Dr. Lisa Bailey’s reports after finding that she introduced a new general causation methodology during Phase 3 specific causation discovery.
Dr. Bailey had compared plaintiffs’ exposure levels to EPA and ATSDR regulatory toxicity criteria and “points of departure” to conclude that exposures below those thresholds were unlikely to cause disease. The court found that the analysis did more than apply existing general causation opinions to individual plaintiffs; it addressed whether certain exposure levels are capable of causing harm generally.
Because that methodology was not disclosed during Phase 2, when general causation discovery was scheduled to occur, the court found no clear error or legal mistake in the magistrate judge’s sanction. The judges also rejected the argument that earlier references to the same regulatory materials cured the problem, because those experts had not used the materials in the same analytical way.
The ruling underscores the court’s insistence on preserving the phased discovery structure separating general causation from specific causation.
Judges Address Damages and Government Benefit Offsets
The third order[3] addressed the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Group’s motion in limine seeking to limit evidence of statutory offsets, including future benefits, benefits from sources not listed in the CLJA, offsets that do not correspond to the same category of damages and past medical expenses paid by government programs.
The court granted the motion only in part, holding that the government may not rely on benefits from sources outside those specifically listed in the statute, including sources not listed in the statute, which identifies programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Medicare and Medicaid.
The judges otherwise rejected the plaintiffs’ proposed limits. They held that the statute does not categorically exclude future benefits if the government can show they are reasonably certain and calculable, and they declined to require offsets to match the same category of claimed damages because the CLJA applies offsets against “any award.”
The court also refused to categorically exclude evidence of past medical expenses paid by qualifying government programs, explaining that plaintiffs retain the burden of proving damages while the government bears the burden of proving any offset. The judges noted that disputes may remain over whether particular expenses were paid by a qualifying program and whether they relate to Camp Lejeune water exposure.
What the June 5 Orders Mean for Camp Lejeune Litigation
Chief Judge Richard E. Myers II, Judge Terrence W. Boyle and Judge James C. Dever III joined the offset ruling, while Judge Louise W. Flanagan will address those issues separately in cases assigned to her.
Together, the June 5 orders preserve the CLJA’s lower causation burden for plaintiffs while making clear that expert testimony remains subject to ordinary evidentiary gatekeeping and that offsets will turn on statutory source, subject matter connection, certainty and proof. The rulings are expected to shape expert presentations and damages calculations as one of the nation’s largest mass tort proceedings moves closer to trial.
As Camp Lejeune litigation continues to evolve, individuals and families affected by water contamination at the base may benefit from staying informed about developments that could affect their claims. If you have questions about the Camp Lejeune litigation or your legal options, contact The Carlson Law Firm to discuss your situation. Individuals seeking additional information about the Camp Lejeune claims process may also review resources provided by the Department of the Navy.
[1] In re Camp Lejeune Water Litig., No. 7:23‑CV‑897, D.E. 884 (E.D.N.C. June 5, 2026), available at https://camplejeunecourtinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/131110798178.pdf.
[2] In re Camp Lejeune Water Litig., No. 7:23‑CV‑897, D.E. 885 (E.D.N.C. Jun. 5, 2026), available at https://camplejeunecourtinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/131110799196.pdf.
[3] In re Camp Lejeune Water Litig., No. 7:23‑CV‑897, D.E. 886 (E.D.N.C. Jun. 5,2026), available at https://camplejeunecourtinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/131110799226.pdf.
