Whether the courts below erroneously abused their discretion dismissing Rizzo's Experts (Dr. Wang, Dr. Miloslaysky, Dr. Hodgman) in conflict with the decisions of multiple circuits (MDL) even the Second Circuit's past rulings, where experts and scientific knowledge - facts of the case - usurp the jury's right to decide the facts conflicting with Daubert upon scientific controversy overstepping the function of the gatekeeper. Where epidemiology and peer review was substantial and opinions derived from Rizzo's clinical picture, while claiming the case is of ipse dixit though the science challenges the rulings from the courts below supporting Daubert. The rulings are contradictive to the science and unconstitutionally interferes with Rizzo's right to have his claims heard by a jury of peers as required by the Seventh Amendment.

Whether the courts below erroneously held a different standard of review for Daubert and FRE 702 in combination with unsubstantiated Expert Reports where FRCP 26(A)(2b) requires that when referencing data, the data must be presented for confirmation of theories, methodologies, or science and reviewed by the justice. Record indicates NO journals where entered by GF in support of GF's Motion for Summary Judgment, FRCP 56 in conflict with the Record as being inadequate for review and erroneously blocked evidence, initiating FRAP 10(e)(2) (which was denied) where scientific research has proven General and Specific Caution, supporting that a de novo review by the Second Circuit is erroneous and against the science as well as Justice Stevens dissent, "The District Court, however, examined the studies one by one. . ."General Elec. Co., v. Joiner, 522 U.S. at 152.

Whether Courts below erroneously denied the Amended Complaint that was filed timely, FRCP 15(a) on December 20, 2016 due to a shift in scheduling and was "directed" by Magistrate Baxter to file after Discovery concluded. The courts below ruled against the Amended Complaint per their directive to file. Rizzo filed on November 21, 2016, 29 days after close of Discovery (USCA ECF 89, p18). Amending the Complaint was to further detail CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675), within this Daubert case, from site exposures while GF alluded / hinted to this [thing] at Second Circuit Oral Argument, uncontested by GF Experts, as the Briefs and Record support and the courts were erroneous in denying Rizzo's right to amend.

Whether the courts below erroneously abused their discretion in dismissing Rizzo's experts, whether the courts below erroneously held a different standard of review for Daubert and FRE 702, whether the courts below erroneously denied the amended complaint