More than two years after the catastrophic Norfolk Southern train derailment that released hazardous chemicals into East Palestine and surrounding communities, a newly surfaced internal report has thrown the class-action settlement process into turmoil. According to residents involved in the settlement, lawyers representing them intentionally withheld a scientific analysis commissioned by the plaintiffs' expert that documented lingering toxic compounds in soil, water, and air at levels exceeding safety thresholds.
The report, dated several months before the settlement was finalized, was completed by a consulting firm hired by the plaintiffs' legal team to assess long-term health risks. Residents say they were never shown the findings; instead, they were told the settlement—worth an estimated $600 million at the time—was the best available option given uncertain litigation outcomes. Some who accepted the settlement, which includes both monetary compensation and medical monitoring, now feel misled.
“They told us the area was safe enough, that the settlement was a good deal,” said Martha Jenkins, a East Palestine resident who opted into the settlement. “Now we see a report that says levels are anything but safe. It feels like they traded our health for a quick resolution.”
Norfolk Southern, the railroad operator, has maintained that its cleanup efforts meet all EPA standards and that the area is safe for habitation. Representatives for the plaintiffs' law firms—several prominent national class-action firms—declined to comment on the record, but a source familiar with the litigation strategy said the decision not to release the report was based on legal strategy: “The report was a draft, not peer-reviewed, and could have been used against the plaintiffs by Norfolk Southern’s experts in court. It was never intended to be a public document.”
Critics, however, argue that suppressing key evidence from clients violates ethical obligations. “A lawyer has an affirmative duty to share material information with clients,” said Professor Linda Hartwell, an expert in legal ethics at Georgetown University. “If this report shows genuine risk, residents had a right to know before waiving their right to sue—especially for future medical claims.”
The revelation has prompted inquiries from state lawmakers and at least one national consumer advocacy group, which is considering filing a bar complaint against the involved firms. Meanwhile, East Palestine residents who accepted the settlement are weighing whether to challenge its validity in court, arguing that fraud or concealment by their own attorneys could void the agreement.
The Ohio Attorney General’s office has said it is “reviewing the situation” but has not opened an investigation. The EPA, which oversaw the initial emergency response and cleanup, said it will re-examine the report’s data to determine if additional remediation is necessary.
The case highlights enduring tensions between quick liability settlements and long-term environmental health monitoring—a question that continues to affect hundreds of toxic exposure lawsuits nationwide.