The first trial under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act exposed a fundamental disagreement between the federal government and the people seeking compensation for illnesses they believe were caused by contaminated drinking water at the Marine Corps base.
Over three days in an Elizabeth City federal courtroom, attorneys presented competing scientific evidence, questioned medical experts and debated whether toxic chemicals in Camp Lejeune's drinking water caused Marine Corps veteran Frank Mousser's kidney cancer.
The official transcript, released on Friday, offers a detailed account of the historic proceedings before U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. It also reveals how much is at stake beyond Mousser's individual case.
More than 400,000 administrative claims have been filed under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. While the outcome of Mousser's case will not automatically determine those claims, the first ruling could influence how similar cases are evaluated and potentially resolved.
For retired federal epidemiologist Dr. Frank Bove and longtime Camp Lejeune advocates Mike Partain and Jerry Ensminger, the central concern is that the federal attorneys are challenging claims involving illnesses that the government’s own scientists have associated with exposure to toxic chemicals.
One of the central issues at trial was whether or not scientific evidence was sufficient to link Mousser’s diagnosis of kidney cancer to his exposure to the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.
Previous coverage: First Camp Lejeune Justice Act trial begins as settlement talks advance
A historic trial begins
Mousser's trial opened October 26 at the J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Elizabeth City.
In the bench trial, Boyle was responsible for hearing the evidence, determining the facts and ultimately deciding whether Mousser had proved his case.
Mousser's attorneys argued that exposure to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune caused his cancer and that he was entitled to compensation under the 2022 law.
The Justice Department disputed that the evidence established the necessary causal connection.
During opening statements, government attorney Adam Bain acknowledged the seriousness of Mousser's illness.
"We don't dispute that he has a serious illness," Bain told Boyle.
The government maintained, however, that Mousser still had to prove that exposure to the chemicals in Camp Lejeune's water caused his particular cancer.
That distinction would become central to the testimony.
Previous coverage: After Trump ties Camp Lejeune settlements to midterms, advocates and lawmakers push back
The scientific dispute
Camp Lejeune's drinking water was contaminated with industrial solvents and other chemicals over several decades. Among them was trichloroethylene, commonly known as TCE, which is classified as a human carcinogen.
Scientific research has established an association between TCE exposure and kidney cancer.
But Mousser's diagnosis presented a more specific question.
His cancer involved the renal pelvis, part of the urinary system that collects urine from the kidney before it moves into the ureter.
Although renal pelvis cancer occurs in the kidney region, it is medically distinct from renal cell carcinoma, the more common form of kidney cancer.
That difference became a major point of contention.
The plaintiff's experts argued that the scientific and medical evidence supported a connection between Mousser's exposure and his illness.
The government's experts challenged whether research involving kidney cancer could reliably be applied to renal pelvis cancer.
The distinction matters because the two diseases arise from different types of cells and may have different risk factors.
During the trial, the government questioned whether scientific findings concerning TCE and renal cell cancer established that the chemical could also cause renal pelvis cancer.
One of its expert witnesses, Dr. Paul Shields, addressed that issue during testimony October 27.
When questioned about the scientific evidence, Shields acknowledged that scientists generally cannot say a chemical could never cause a particular disease.
"As a scientist, I will never say 'cannot,'" he testified.
But Shields said the available human evidence did not support a conclusion that Camp Lejeune exposure caused Mousser's particular cancer.
His testimony reflected the government's position that the scientific association between TCE and kidney cancer should not automatically be extended to every cancer affecting the kidney or urinary tract.
Mousser's attorneys challenged that interpretation through their own expert testimony.
Previous coverage: Federal court rejects Camp Lejeune settlement calculation challenge as documentation backlog grows
A surgeon's opinion
Among the plaintiff's witnesses was Dr. Joseph Del Pizzo, a urologic surgeon who testified October 26.
Attorney Elliot Abrams asked Del Pizzo directly what he believed caused Mousser's kidney cancer.
"To a reasonable degree of medical certainty, his exposure to the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune was more likely than not the cause of his kidney cancer," Del Pizzo testified.
That opinion went directly to the central issue Boyle must decide.
The plaintiff's case depended not simply on establishing that Camp Lejeune's water was contaminated or that certain chemicals can cause cancer. His attorneys needed to connect that exposure to Mousser's specific diagnosis.
Del Pizzo's testimony provided one medical opinion supporting that connection.
The Justice Department challenged the plaintiff's experts and offered competing testimony concerning the scientific evidence, cancer classification and other possible causes.
The disagreement illustrates why the first Camp Lejeune trials are likely to be consequential.
Even when the parties agree that contamination occurred and that a plaintiff developed a serious illness, they may sharply disagree about whether the available scientific evidence proves causation.
What a former federal scientist says about the research
Dr. Frank Bove spent years investigating the health effects of Camp Lejeune's contaminated drinking water while working for the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, or ATSDR.
He helped lead studies examining cancer deaths and diagnoses among Marines and civilian workers exposed to the water.
Those investigations included a mortality study published in 2014 and a cancer incidence study published in 2024.
Bove says the scientific evidence connecting TCE exposure and kidney cancer is well established.
"We do know from looking at studies done of workers in industry that exposure to trichloroethylene is associated with kidney cancer," retired federal epidemiologist Dr. Frank Bove, a principal researcher for ATSDR, said. He added that federal and international scientific agencies have reached similar conclusions about TCE's carcinogenic effects.
But Bove also acknowledged an important limitation of epidemiological studies.
They can identify increased disease risks among exposed populations without proving precisely what caused one person's illness.
"The studies cannot tell that a specific person got the cancer from the exposure," he said. "All we can say is that it's likely because the rate was higher among those exposed than unexposed."
That limitation is central to the government's legal defense.
The Justice Department argues that scientific evidence establishing a general association is not necessarily sufficient to prove causation in an individual case.
Bove's research provides evidence about the health risks associated with exposure at Camp Lejeune. The court must determine how that evidence applies to Mousser's specific medical circumstances.
Why researchers compared Marines to Marines
Bove said one of the strengths of ATSDR's research was its comparison of Marines stationed at Camp Lejeune with Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton in California.
"What we wanted to compare was apples to apples. We wanted to compare Marines to Marines and Camp Pendleton was the best. It was so similar to Camp Lejeune. The only difference is that they are on the opposite sides of the country."
Camp Pendleton offered a population with similarities in age, occupation and military lifestyle but without the same documented exposure to contaminated drinking water.
Bove said the comparison helped researchers account for factors such as smoking and alcohol use that could otherwise complicate the findings.
"They (attorneys for the Department of Justice) may say smoking and alcohol is a problem, but it isn't because that's why we chose Pendleton," retired ATSDR epidemiologist Dr. Frank Bove said. He pointed to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is strongly associated with smoking, as an example of how the populations could be compared. "If you look at a disease like COPD, which is a smoking, obviously a smoking disease, there was hardly any difference between the two."
The studies did not eliminate every possible alternative explanation for cancer, but the comparison helped researchers assess whether differences in disease rates could be associated with exposure.
Bove said another important consideration was the age of people diagnosed with cancer.
"Actually, over 75% were less than 60 years of age," he said of the population he was discussing. "And these cancers usually occur among those 65 and over."
For researchers, the appearance of certain cancers among relatively younger people raised additional questions about environmental exposure.
The government's experts, meanwhile, questioned whether the studies provided sufficient evidence concerning the specific type of cancer involved in Mousser's case.
That disagreement underscores the difference between evaluating disease patterns in a population and proving an individual legal claim.
Previous coverage: ‘It would be 2424’: Camp Lejeune families demand action on claims backlog
The exposure models under scrutiny
Another major issue during the trial involved scientific efforts to reconstruct the contaminated water systems at Camp Lejeune.
Because the contamination occurred decades ago, researchers could not simply measure what was in the water when each person lived or worked on the base.
Instead, scientists used historical records, groundwater information and computer models to estimate when and where contaminants entered the drinking water systems.
Morris Maslia, an engineer involved in the water modeling research, testified for the plaintiff on the first day of the trial.
The models are important because the timing, duration and extent of exposure may influence whether a particular illness can be connected to the contamination.
Bove defended the scientific approach used by ATSDR.
"I know that they've been questioning the drinking water model, which was state-of-the-art," retired ATSDR epidemiologist Dr. Frank Bove said. "So I don't know why they're, you know, they can question it, but they're off base."
He said researchers faced significant limitations because historical testing records were incomplete.
One particular concern involved benzene, another chemical associated with cancer.
"The only question would be about the level of benzene in the drinking water because they failed to measure it until late '85," Bove said.
He said the lack of measurements meant researchers may have underestimated the amount of benzene present during earlier years.
"We may have underestimated greatly the amount of benzene in the drinking water," he said.
Bove also emphasized that exposure at Camp Lejeune was different from exposure in many industrial workplaces.
People living on the base could encounter contaminated water while drinking, cooking, bathing and showering.
"Workers don't drink it when they work with TCE, but in this case you do," he said.
Those multiple exposure pathways were among the factors scientists considered when reconstructing the contamination.
Previous coverage: Advocates react after federal court pressures both sides to settle Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuit
A second battle over compensation
The trial was not limited to whether the water caused Mousser's cancer.
Attorneys also presented evidence about the financial and personal consequences of his illness and how any compensation should be calculated.
The government called medical and economic experts to address those questions.
During the final day, attorneys discussed medical expenses already paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs and whether future VA benefits should reduce any damages awarded under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act.
Mousser's attorneys acknowledged a government figure of approximately $62,000 in past VA health care expenses for purposes of the proceeding.
But they disputed how those expenses should affect a potential award.
They also questioned whether future VA medical care should be deducted from compensation if Mousser intended to seek private treatment.
The Justice Department presented testimony concerning the availability of future benefits and the calculation of economic damages.
The disagreement reflects another complicated aspect of the law.
Even if a plaintiff proves that contaminated water caused an illness, the court must still determine the appropriate compensation and account for certain federal benefits.
The government argues that the law requires applicable offsets to prevent duplicate compensation.
Plaintiffs' attorneys contend that those calculations must reflect the actual damages suffered and the benefits a claimant is reasonably expected to receive.
For people seeking compensation, the outcome of those disputes could substantially affect the amount ultimately awarded.
Advocates question the government's position
For Mike Partain and Jerry Ensminger, the scientific arguments presented by the Justice Department are especially frustrating.
Both men spent decades investigating the contamination and pressing the federal government to recognize its consequences.
Partain was born at Camp Lejeune in 1968 and developed male breast cancer at age 39.
Ensminger, a retired Marine Corps Master Sergeant, lost his daughter Janey to leukemia in 1985, when she was 9 years old.
Their research, advocacy and congressional testimony helped build support for the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which Congress passed in 2022.
They believe the government is now challenging scientific conclusions that federal agencies helped establish.
"The elephant in the room to me when it comes to the defense is that the defense's own scientific agencies -- ATSDR, EPA -- have found links between TCE and cancer and especially kidney cancer," advocate and Camp Lejeune contaminated water survivor Mike Partain said. Fellow advocate Jerry Ensminger, who lost his young daughter to leukemia after she was exposed to the water aboard the base, agreed. "They chose to ignore it," he said.
Partain, who has spent 26 years working as a claims adjuster, said he understands the government's responsibility to defend itself in litigation.
But he believes some of the arguments go too far.
"I understand the Department of Justice role and duty to defend the government, but at some point, there's an ethical obligation to do the right thing," he said.
"And some of this defense is going beyond what is, in my opinion, reasonable and ethical."
Ensminger questioned why the government continues to challenge claims involving exposure to a chemical that federal scientific agencies have identified as a human carcinogen.
"Here's the federal government trying to defend this thing, but they're skipping the fact that their own federal agencies have declared this a known human carcinogen based mainly on the science that shows it causes kidney cancer."
Partain compared the government's position to a child caught with its hand in the cookie jar.
"Kind of like a three-year-old in front of the cookie jar with the cookie in the hand and the crumbs on the floor," he said.
Their criticism reflects a broader frustration among people who believe the government has spent decades resisting accountability for the contamination.
But the Justice Department maintains that the Camp Lejeune Justice Act provides a legal opportunity to prove a claim, not automatic compensation for everyone who developed an illness after serving or living at the base.
That disagreement was apparent in the trial's closing arguments.
What Congress intended
As the proceedings concluded October 28, attorneys debated the purpose of the Camp Lejeune Justice Act and the evidence necessary to obtain compensation.
During closing arguments, Bain emphasized that the law was enacted after earlier lawsuits had been blocked by legal barriers, including restrictions on suing the federal government.
"The Camp Lejeune Justice Act was passed to open the courtroom door to allow our veterans to have a chance to prove their case," government attorney Adam Bain told Judge Boyle, arguing that opening the courthouse doors did not eliminate the plaintiff's obligation to prove causation.
Mousser's attorneys maintained that the evidence presented during the trial satisfied that requirement.
The distinction is important.
Congress created a new legal path for people exposed to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune after years in which many claims could not proceed.
But the legislation did not automatically establish that every illness was caused by the contamination.
Boyle must determine whether Mousser's attorneys met the legal standard based on the testimony and evidence presented.
The judge concluded the trial without issuing an immediate ruling.
The case now awaits his decision.
A ruling with consequences beyond one Marine
Although Mousser's case concerns his individual illness and circumstances, the outcome could influence the broader litigation.
The first four bellwether trials involve plaintiffs diagnosed with kidney cancer.
The next case, involving Marine Corps veteran David Fancher, is scheduled to begin Monday.
During the final day of Mousser's trial, attorneys discussed ways to streamline the next proceeding by agreeing to use certain evidence concerning water modeling and general causation without repeating all of the testimony.
That approach could help the court move through additional cases more efficiently.
It also demonstrates why the first trial matters.
The evidence concerning Camp Lejeune's water systems and the ability of certain chemicals to cause disease may be relevant to numerous claims, even though each plaintiff's medical circumstances differ.
Partain said he is willing to wait for Boyle to carefully consider the evidence.
"The judge will render his decision when the judge renders his decision," he said.
He added that the judge should have enough time to evaluate the science and legal arguments without being pressured into a quick ruling.
"I certainly, for one, don't want to see him rush," Partain said.
"We've waited 20 and 30 years between Jerry and I. A couple of weeks, even a couple of months is not going to make that much of a difference."
Ensminger suggested the judge might want to hear additional cases before issuing decisions.
"He may not want to rule on any one case until he hears all of them," he said.
There is no established date for a ruling in Mousser's case.
Previous coverage: Advocates, victims rally at Capitol Hill, urging lawmakers to support Ensuring Justice for Camp Lejeune Victims Act
The global settlement question remains
Even as the first trials move forward, the larger Camp Lejeune litigation remains unresolved.
Federal judges overseeing the cases asked attorneys for the government and the plaintiffs to make their best efforts toward developing a global settlement framework by October 30.
That date passed without a publicly confirmed agreement.
A global settlement could provide a process for resolving large numbers of claims without requiring individual trials.
Partain believes that remains essential.
"At any point in time, the Department of Justice can sit down and negotiate a global settlement," advocate Mike Partain said. He pointed to the scientific research linking exposure at Camp Lejeune to numerous medical conditions. "If you want to legally argue it, that's their choice, but science has spoken on those conditions."
The Plaintiffs' Leadership Group has also been pressing for procedures to address categories of illnesses that account for a substantial portion of the litigation.
In October, the group proposed a process focused on 25 categories of diseases and medical conditions while leaving open the possibility of addressing other illnesses separately.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has sought additional individualized evidence through a proposed Lone Pine order.
The plaintiffs' leadership opposed that request, arguing that imposing costly expert-report requirements at this stage could create substantial financial burdens and further delay claims.
The government contends that additional evidence would help identify claims that can satisfy the legal requirements for compensation.
Those disputes illustrate the challenge the courts are facing.
The litigation involves hundreds of thousands of claims, multiple medical conditions, complex scientific questions and people whose exposure occurred decades ago.
Many claimants are elderly. Others have died while waiting for their cases to be resolved.
The advocates' fight continues
For Partain and Ensminger, the first trial represents an important milestone, but not the end of their work.
Both men say additional changes to the Camp Lejeune Justice Act are needed to address obstacles that have emerged since its passage.
They intend to continue pushing for the Ensuring Justice for Camp Lejeune Victims Act when the new Congress convenes in January.
Their advocacy began long before the current lawsuits and has continued through years of scientific investigations, congressional hearings and legal setbacks.
Partain said the goal has never been an unconditional payment from the government.
"At some point, you’ve got to take care of our troops and their families," he said.
"We've never sat there and asked for an open handout. We've wanted what was, you know, owed to us. We wanted justice."
He believes the fight might have ended years earlier if a private company had been responsible for the contamination.
"You would think that if this had been a private polluter, it would have been over probably a decade ago."
"You would think that if this had been a private polluter, it would have been over probably a decade ago."
He added that, “Unlike a private polluter, the government has numerous advantages and defense, perhaps the strongest is they have all the money and time in the world to wait out a case.”
Now, after the first trial under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, the decision rests with Boyle.
He must weigh competing scientific testimony, determine whether Mousser proved that the contaminated drinking water caused his cancer, and decide whether compensation is warranted.
For the thousands of Marines, family members and civilian workers waiting for their own claims to be resolved, the first ruling could offer an early indication of how the courts will handle the scientific and legal questions at the heart of the Camp Lejeune litigation.
Official October 26, 27 and 28, 2026, Mousser trial transcripts are available online HERE.
