A recent court ruling out of Jefferson County, Colorado, has drawn national attention in the growing wave of lawsuits alleging cancer caused by ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. In this closely watched case, the court ordered the cancer-stricken plaintiffs to pay Terumo BCT — the medical sterilization company accused of releasing toxic levels of EtO — over $5.2 million in legal fees and costs.

For individuals and families pursuing justice in toxic exposure cases, this decision serves as both a cautionary tale and a reminder of the importance of perseverance through the appeals process.

Understanding the Ruling

The Colorado case stemmed from allegations that Terumo BCT’s sterilization facility emitted dangerous levels of ethylene oxide, a carcinogenic gas linked to increased risks of breast cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, and other serious illnesses.

Plaintiffs claimed the company failed to adequately control its emissions, exposing nearby residents and workers to harmful concentrations of EtO.

However, the jury found in favor of Terumo, concluding that the plaintiffs had not met the evidentiary threshold to establish causation under Colorado law.

To compound the outcome, the judge ordered the plaintiffs to pay the company’s legal fees and expenses — totaling $5.2 million — a substantial financial burden that underscores how complex and high-stakes toxic tort litigation can be.

Implications for Plaintiffs in Other Ethylene Oxide Cases

While the Jefferson County verdict represents a setback for those specific plaintiffs, it does not diminish the strength or potential of other ethylene oxide claims nationwide.

Toxic exposure cases depend heavily on site-specific data, emission history, expert testimony, and epidemiological evidence. Each case stands on its own scientific and factual record.

Courts in states such as Illinois and Georgia have taken a different approach, allowing cases to proceed based on the growing body of medical literature linking chronic EtO exposure to cancer.

Moreover, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently reaffirmed that ethylene oxide is far more carcinogenic than previously believed — a finding that bolsters plaintiffs’ arguments in ongoing litigation.

The Colorado decision, while disappointing, highlights the need for careful case preparation and the strategic use of expert evidence to prove exposure pathways and causation. It should not deter victims from seeking accountability.

The Importance of the Appeals Process

Toxic tort litigation rarely ends with a single ruling. The appellate process exists precisely to correct potential errors, address legal inconsistencies, and ensure that plaintiffs receive a fair trial.

The Jefferson County plaintiffs are expected to pursue an appeal, challenging both the dismissal of their claims and the unprecedented attorney fee award.

Appeals in cases like this serve a vital function: they help clarify how courts interpret complex environmental statutes, scientific causation standards, and cost-shifting laws that can dramatically affect future cases.

Even when an initial verdict favors the defense, appellate courts have the authority to reverse or remand decisions that misapply the law or exclude critical evidence.

For families affected by ethylene oxide exposure, persistence is key. Justice in environmental and toxic tort cases often comes only after years of litigation, expert review, and appellate advocacy.

Moving Forward

At Zinns Law, we continue to represent individuals and families who have been diagnosed with cancer after exposure to ethylene oxide and other industrial toxins.

We understand the scientific, legal, and emotional challenges that accompany these cases — and we remain committed to holding corporations accountable for placing profit over public safety.

If you or a loved one has developed cancer after living or working near an ethylene oxide sterilization facility, you deserve answers and advocacy.

Our attorneys are here to help you understand your rights, evaluate your case, and pursue justice through every available legal channel.