GERARDO DENNIS PATRICKSON, BENIGNO TORRES HERNANDEZ, FERNANDO JIMENEZ ARIAS, ELIAS ESPINOSA MERELO,  ALIRIO MANUEL MENDEZ, CARLOS HUMBERTO RIVERA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,  Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY and DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC., Petitioners/Defendants-Appellees, and DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY, SHELL OIL COMPANY, OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION (individually and as successor to Occidental Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical Agricultural Products, Inc. Hooker Chemical and Plastics, Occidental Chemical Company of Texas, and Best Fertilizer Company), STANDARD FRUIT COMPANY, STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY, DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (HAWAII) INC. (previously incorrectly named as Del Monte Fresh Produce Hawaii, Inc.), Respondents/Defendants-Appellees, and DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., Respondent/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DEAD SEA BROMINE CO., LTD. and BROMINE COMPOUNDS, LIMITED, Respondents/Third-Party Defendants-Appellees. 

The above-captioned consolidated cases have been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be live streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY:
     Steven L. Goto of Chong, Nishimoto, Sia, Nakamura & Goya, LLLP

Attorneys for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC.:
     David Chee and Christine S. Prepose-Kamihara of the Law Office of David W.H. Chee

Attorney for Respondents/Plaintiffs-Appellants GERARDO DENNIS PATRICKSON, BENIGNO TORRES HERNANDEZ, FERNANDO JIMENEZ ARIAS, ELIAS ESPINOSA MERELO,  ALIRIO MANUEL MENDEZ, and CARLOS HUMBERTO RIVERA:
     Keith M. Kiuchi

Attorneys for Respondents/Defendants-Appellees DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., DOLE FRESH FRUIT COMPANY, STANDARD FRUIT AND STANDARD FRUIT AND STEAMSHIP COMPANY:
     Melvin M. Miyagi, Ross T. Shinyama and Rihui Yuan of Watanabe Ing LLP

NOTE:     Order assigning Circuit Judge Taryn R. Tomasa, due to a vacancy, filed 02/10/26.

NOTE:     Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 02/17/26.

COURT:    McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Tomasa, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

This case arises out of a putative class action.  Fernando Jimenez Arias (Arias) and other class members filed a second amended complaint against Dow Chemical Company (Dow) and Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. (Del Monte), among others, alleging that they were exposed to dibromochloropropane (DBCP), a powerful nematocide manufactured by Dow and applied by Del Monte in their Costa Rican banana plantations where class members worked, and that such exposure caused them adverse health effects, including, for Arias, infertility and his wife’s miscarriages.  To buttress their allegations, class plaintiffs submitted expert testimony from Dr. Michael J. DiBartolomeis (DiBartolomeis), who provided circumstantial evidence that Arias was more likely than not exposed to DBCP and that such exposure caused his alleged injuries.

The Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) granted Dow’s motion for summary judgment as to the second amended complaint, concluding, in part, that Arias failed to establish a prima facie case of legal causation.  It also granted Dow’s motion in limine to exclude DiBartolomeis’s expert report and testimony, concluding that DiBartolomeis’s opinion lacked an evidentiary basis as to causation in fact and that the record contained no evidence of Arias’ exposure to DBCP.  Finally, it granted Del Monte’s joinders to Dow’s motions.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the circuit court’s orders, holding that enough evidence existed to raise genuine issues of material fact as to whether Arias was exposed to DBCP and whether such exposure caused his alleged injuries. 

On certiorari, Dow and Del Monte challenge the ICA’s vacatur of the circuit court’s orders granting: (1) Dow’s motion for summary judgment as to the second amended complaint, but only as it relates to Arias; (2) Dow’s motion in limine excluding DiBartolomeis’s expert testimony; and (3) Del Monte’s joinders. 

The two questions presented are:

(1) Toxic Tort Causation Standard. When the only evidence is that Plaintiff, a fruit inspector, worked away from the fields where the subject chemical (DBCP) was applied, never saw DBCP being applied, and never worked with it himself, is it sufficient for the plaintiff to proceed to trial when he merely “must have [had] some exposure because he was on the farm” where it was applied?

(2) Appellate Standard of Review of the Trial Court’s Gatekeeper Review of Expert Testimony. Did the ICA gravely err when it used a summary judgment standard in evaluating an expert’s causation testimony instead of evaluating the testimony for reliability and relevancy, and when it effectively applied a de novo review, rather than an abuse of discretion standard?