Arguing the Case to the Florida Supreme Court


We had one step one, and received a positive decision on our writ to present our case to the Supreme Court. We now had to fully brief and argue the merits of the case to the Florida Supreme Court.


This was the first positive news we had gotten in a long time. We still had a long way to go. Once we got this chance, however, we were able to start breathing on our own again. By no means were we in the Promised Land, but we were still alive and kicking.


During the briefing process, we got the results of DuPont’s scientific studies and ours. The results were very favorable for us. Unfortunately, these studies would not be admissible in the state Supreme Court case, because they are not allowed to review evidence outside of the original Castillo trial transcript. Both their study and ours showed that we were 100% right, and the Third District Court of Appeals was 100% wrong.


Without exception, every subject in our TNO study who had had benomyl placed on his skin was urinating out its metabolites. What this meant was that the chemical definitely got into the bloodstream, passed through the kidneys, and was ultimately secreted out as urine.


That was good, but even more astounding were the results of DuPont’s studies. When we received the series of the pharmaco­kinetic studies from DuPont, one was suspiciously missing from the numbered series: the autoradiography report, which showed that the chemical would accumulate in various tissues and organs—in particular the kidneys, which had the second-highest amount of accumulation, a result that tied right into the findings of our own studies.


But the most amazing discovery of all was that the highest concentration of the chemical was found in the uveal tract of the eyes!


DuPont shot themselves in the foot, and in the process proved that we were right all along.


While I was happy to have the data, it wouldn’t help the Castillos.


In my next post, I continue recounting our work in presenting our case to the Florida Supreme Court.


You’ll find a detailed insider’s narrative of this case in my book, Blindsided, from which I’ve adapted this post.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *