A federal wrongful death lawsuit alleging exposure to radiation from nuclear materials caused a South Florida teenager's brain cancer had its moment before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Wednesday as attorneys debated whether Florida's four-year statute of limitations should apply.

The appellate panel must decide how two different federal laws should intersect. While 42 U.S.C. § 9658 preempts state time limits for lawsuits involving nuclear incidents, the Price-Anderson Act adopts state law as "the rules for decision."

The question arose after Palm Beach County resident Cynthia Santiago sued in the Southern District of Florida in 2014, five years after she was diagnosed with a brain tumor at 13. When she died about two years later, her parents Joselyn and Steve Santiago became personal representatives.

The complaint blamed Connecticut-based aircraft maker United Technologies Corp., alleging its Palm Beach County engineering facility released radioactive materials, heavy metals and semi-volatiles in The Acreage, where several children were also reportedly diagnosed with brain tumors.

The defendant is commonly known as Pratt & Whitney Group. It has denied the allegations.

The lawsuit faltered before U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra, who found that although it was grounded in state law, it was not "brought under state law," meaning §9658 wouldn't apply. Under that reasoning, the lawsuit was blocked because the Florida statute of limitations had expired.

But plaintiffs attorney Bryan Gowdy of Creed & Gowdy in Jacksonville argued that was a mistake, because the lower court read the laws "out of context."

In live-streamed oral arguments conducted over the phone, the appellate panel was meticulous in picking apart language from both sides.

"Could Congress strip the state courts of jurisdiction over a state law issue and hand that issue of state law over to the federal courts without running into some Constitutional problems?"  Senior Judge Stanley Marcus said.

Gowdy argued that it could under the Price-Anderson Act because Congress adopted state law as federal law—excluding anything found to be inconsistent.

Gowdy is handling the case with John Scarola and Mara Hatfield of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley in West Palm Beach.

Defense attorney Andrew MacNally of Barlit Beck in Chicago argued the plaintiff's Price-Anderson Act claims fall outside the scope of §9658.

"It's sort of backward to think of these cases as arising under federal law here," MacNally said. "Those elements of state law are providing something to the federal regime, but they are molded and shaped by the federal law, and as a result they become part of the federal law."

Because §9658 applies to actions "brought under state law," Judge Robert Luck repeatedly pressed the attorneys on what "brought" and under" really mean, causing them to stumble over whether the terms are ambiguous in certain scenarios.

The court has yet to rule.

Read more: