Industry backs bill to limit ethylene‑oxide claims as lawmakers weigh community and legal concerns
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
LB831 would raise pleading and liability standards for ethylene‑oxide sterilizers; med‑tech groups and local chambers warned the EPA’s stricter rules threaten sterilization capacity and jobs, while trial attorneys said the bill functions as immunity and could improperly block valid claims.
Lincoln — A bill that would limit state‑court claims against medical‑sterilization facilities using ethylene oxide (EO) drew sharply divided testimony, with industry groups and a local chamber urging legal predictability to protect jobs and local investment while plaintiff attorneys warned the measure amounts to immunity that would prevent victims from obtaining justice.
Senator Bob Hallstrom introduced LB831, saying ethylene oxide sterilization is used for a large share of medical devices and the industry faces an EPA rule (NESHAP, updated in 2024) that requires dramatic emission reductions. Hallstrom said the bill would require plaintiffs to plead present physical injury, treat substantial compliance with federal safety rules as a defense and require particularity in pleading — measures he framed as necessary to preserve sterilization capacity and Nebraska jobs.
Representatives of BD (manufacturing in Columbus), BioNebraska and Advomed testified that EO is essential for many devices, that Nebraska hosts major manufacturing and that uncertainty could dissuade expansion. Dawson Brunswick of the Columbus Area Chamber said BD’s investments supported thousands of jobs locally and urged “certainty and fairness” for employers.
Opponents from the Nebraska Association for Trial Attorneys and other plaintiff lawyers said the bill imposes abnormal pleading standards (clear and convincing evidence, particularity) and grants de facto immunity to regulated actors who may nevertheless have exposed communities. They urged the committee to seek public‑health data on local exposure, cancer rates and the population affected before limiting state remedies.
Senator Hallstrom said he is open to meetings with trial lawyers and noted his office planned targeted amendments after State Patrol flagged laboratory‑testing constraints for some proposed schedule items in a different bill. The committee took no vote and the bill remains subject to amendment and negotiation.