TORTINI

For your delectation and delight, desultory dicta on the law of delicts.

Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson – A Case of Meretricious Mensuration?

July 3rd, 2020

There are a few incontrovertible facts underlying the Ingham fiasco. First, only God can make asbestos; it is not a man-made substance. Second, “asbestos” is not a mineralogical or geological term. The word asbestos developed in an industrial context to designate one of six different minerals that occurred in a fibrous habit, and which had commercial application. Five of the six asbestos minerals are double-chain silicates in the amphibole family: actinolite, anthophyllite, crocidolite, grunerite (known by its non-mineralogical name, amosite, from Amosa, “asbestos mines of South Africa), and tremolite. The sixth asbestos mineral is a serpentine family silicate: chrysotile.

Many other minerals occur in fibrous habit, but not all fibrous minerals are asbestos. Of the minerals designated as asbestos, some refer to minerals that occur in fibrous and non-fibrous habits: actinolite, anthophyllite, grunerite, and tremolite. An analytical report that found one of these minerals could not automatically be interpreted as having “asbestos.” The fibrous nature of the mineral would have to be ascertained as well as its chemical an structural nature.

The asbestos mineral crocidolite is known as riebeckite when non-fibrous; and chrysotile is the fibrous form that comes from a group of serpentine minerals, including non-fibrous lizardite and antigorite.[1]

The term “asbestiform” is often used to distinguish the fibrous habit of those asbestos minerals that can occur in fibrous or non-fibrous form. The term, however, is also used to refer to any inorganic fiber, natural or synthetic that resembles the long, thin habit of the asbestos minerals.[2]

What is a fiber?

The asbestos minerals were commercially useful in large part because of their fibrous habit, which allowed them to be woven into cloth or used as heat-resistant binders in insulation materials. Fibers were very long, thin structures with aspect ratios in the hundreds or thousands. Some of the fibers can fracture into long, thin fibrils. Some of the asbestos minerals can appear in their non-fibrous habit as small cleavage fragments, which may have aspect ratios ranging from 1 to 10. The EPA’s counting protocols count fragments with aspect ratios of 3 or greater as “fibers,” but that does not mean that there is strong evidence that amphibole cleavage fragments with aspect ratios of 3 cause cancer.

According to Johnson & Johnson’s principal brief, the plaintiffs’ expert witness William Longo counted any amphibole particle long and thin enough to satisfy a particular regulatory definition of “fiber” set out by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[3]

Unfortunately, in its opening brief, J&J never explained clearly what separates the asbestiform from the non-asbestiform in the counting process. The appeal presents other potential problems. From a review of the appellants’ briefs, it seems unclear whether J&J disputed Longo’s adherence to the EPA definition of asbestiform. In any event, J&J appears not to have challenged the claim that any “asbestiform” fiber as defined by regulatory agencies can cause cancer. Moreover, plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr. Jacqueline Moline, opined that cleavage fragments, or non-asbestiform amphiboles cause cancer.[4] This opinion seems highly dubious,[5] but there was NO appellate point in the defendants’ appellate brief to allege error in admitting Moline’s testimony. In addition, the appellate court’s opinion stated plaintiffs’ position that each and every exposure was a substantial causal factor without any suggestion that there was a challenge to the admissibility of this opinion.

What was the estimated exposure?

The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses appeared to be wildly inconsistent in their quantitative estimations of asbestos exposure from the ordinary use of J&J’s talcum powder. According to J&J’s appellate brief:

“Dr. Longo testified that plaintiffs’ use of the Powders would have exposed them to levels of asbestos at least ‘10 to 20 times above’ the amount in every day air that you breathe’. Tr. 1071. He put these exposure levels in the ‘same category’ as occupational levels. Tr. 1073.”[6]

There are many estimates of the ambient asbestos levels in “every day air,” but one estimate on the high side was given by the National Research Council, in 1984, as 0.0004 fibers/cm3.[7] Using Longo’s upper estimate of 20 times the “every day” level yields exposures of 0.008 f/cm3, a level that is well below the current permissible exposure level set by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Historically, workers in occupational cohorts experienced asbestos exposures at or even above 50 f/cm3.[8]

David Egilman also gave inflated exposure estimates that he equated with “occupational exposure” to the plaintiffs. Egilman opined, based upon Longo’s simulation study, a NIOSH study that counted all fibers, and a published study of another talc product, that the amount of asbestos dust released during personal use of J&J’s product was as high as 2.2 f/cm3, during the application process. These estimates were not time-weighted averages, and the estimates, such as they are, would be many orders of magnitude lower if they were analyzed as part of an eight-hour work day. Nonetheless, Egilman concluded that the plaintiffs’ exposures to J&J’s talc products more than doubled their ovarian cancer risk over baseline.[9]

In my previous post on Ingham, I noted how scientifically ignorant and irresponsible Egilman’s testimony was with respect to equating talc and anthopyllite.[10]  The Missouri Court of Appeals presented Egilman’s opinion as though it were well supported, and gave perfunctory consideration to J&J’s complaint about this testimony:

“Plaintiffs concede that Dr. Egilman’s intensity values for diapering came from a test that counted all types of fibers released by a sample of the Powders, including fibers that are not asbestos (principally talc fibers). RB124.  Suggesting that any of those fibers was asbestos would be speculative; assuming all of them were, as Dr. Egilman did, is absurd. Plaintiffs respond with the radical (and scientifically false) assertion that talc fibers are ‘chemically identical’ to anthophyllite asbestos fibers and therefore equivalent. Id. But plaintiffs never argued at trial, much less proved, that talc is identical to asbestos. Indeed, their own expert, Dr. Longo, distinguished between anthophyllite fibers and talc. See Tr.1062.”[11]

We should all sympathize with a litigant that has been abused by absurd opinion testimony. The Court of Appeals took a more insouciant approach:

“Defendants maintain Dr. Egilman’s measurements ‘lacked a reasonable factual basis’ for several reasons. However, their arguments are insufficient to render Dr. Egilman’s testimony inadmissible. ‘[Q]uestions relating to the bases and sources of an expert’s opinion affect the weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissbility and should be left for the jury’s consideration.’  Primrose Operating Co. v. Nat’l Am. Ins. Co., 382 F.3d 546, 562 (5th Cir. 2004) (alterations in original) (internal quotations omitted). The problems Defendants cite with Dr. Egilman’s testimony go to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility.”[12]

Curiously, the Missouri Court of Appeals cited a federal court decision that applied an incorrect standard for evaluating the admissibility of expert witness opinion testimony.[13] It is inconceivable that the validity of the expert witness’s bases, and his inferences therefrom, are beyond the judicial gatekeeper’s scrutiny. If Egilman consulted a mercator projection map, from which he concluded the world was flat, would the Court of Appeals from the “Show Me” state shrug and say show it to the jury?

Perhaps even more remarkable than Longo’s and Egilman’s meretricious mensuration was Egilman’s opinion that personal use of talc more than doubled the plaintiffs’ risk of ovarian cancer. In the meta-analyses of studies of occupational asbestos exposure, the summary risk estimates were well below two.[14]


[1]  SeeSerpentine subgroup,” in Wikipedia.

[2]  Lester Breslow, et al., Asbestiform Fibers: Nonoccupational Health Risks at 7 (Nat’l Research Council 1984).

[3]  Appellants’ Brief at 38, in Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. No. ED107476, Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District (St. Louis) (Sept. 6, 2019) (Tr. 1171-73).

[4]  Respondents’ Brief at 37, in Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. No. ED107476, Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District (St. Louis) (Dec. 19, 2019) (Tr.5.3369).

[5]  See, e.g., John F. Gamble & Graham W. Gibbs, “An evaluation of the risks of lung cancer and mesothelioma from exposure to amphibole cleavage fragments,” 52 Regulatory Toxicol. & Pharmacol. S154 (2008).

[6]  Appellants’ Brief at 52.

[7]  Lester Breslow, et al., Asbestiform Fibers: Nonoccupational Health Risks at 3 (Nat’l Research Council 1984).

[8]  Irving John Selikoff, “Statistical Compassion,” 44 J. Clin. Epidemiol. 141S, 142S (1991).

[9]  Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, Slip op. at 52-53, No. No. ED107476, Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District (St. Louis) (June 23, 2020) (Slip op.).

[10]  See “Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson – Passing Talc Off As Asbestos,” (June 26, 2020).

[11]  Appellants’ Reply Brief at 43, in Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. No. ED107476, Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District (St. Louis) (Mar. 3, 2020)

[12]  Slip op. at 53.

[13]  SeeJudicial Dodgers – Weight not Admissibility” (May 28, 2020) (collecting authorities).

[14]  See M. Constanza Camargo, Leslie T. Stayner, Kurt Straif, Margarita Reina, Umaima Al-Alem, Paul A. Demers, and Philip J. Landrigan, “Occupational Exposure to Asbestos and Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-analysis,” 119 Envt’l Health Persp. 1211 (2011); Alison Reid, Nick de Klerk, and Arthur W Musk, “Does Exposure to Asbestos Cause Ovarian Cancer? A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis,” 20 Cancer Epidemiol., Biomarkers & Prevention 1287 (2011).

Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson – Passing Talc Off As Asbestos

June 26th, 2020

In talc exposure litigation of ovarian cancer claims, plaintiffs were struggling to show that cosmetic talc use caused ovarian cancer, despite missteps by the defense.[1] And then lawsuit industrialist Mark Lanier entered the fray and offered a meretriciously beguiling move: Stop trying talc cases and start trying asbestos cases.

The Ingham appellate decision this week from the Missouri Court of Appeals appears to be a superficial affirmation of the Lanier strategy.[2] The court gave defendants some relief on jurisdictional issues, but largely affirmed the admissibility of Lanier’s expert witnesses on medical causation, both general and specific.[3]

After all, asbestos is an established cause of ovarian cancer. Or is it?

In 2006, the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) addressed extra-pulmonary cancers caused by asbestos, without ever mentioning ovarian carcinoma.[4] Many textbooks and reviews found themselves unable to conclude that asbestos of any type caused ovarian cancer throughout the 20th century and a decade into the 21st century. The world of opinions changed, however, in 2011, when a working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) met in Lyon, France, and issued its support for the general causation claim in a suspect document published in 2012.[5] The IARC has strict rules that prohibit anyone who has any connection with manufacturing industry from serving on its working groups, but the Agency allows consultants and contractors for the lawsuit industry to serve without limitation. The 2011 working group on fibers and dusts thus sported lawsuit industry acolytes such as Peter F. Infante, Jonathan Samet, and Philip J. Landrigan.

Given the composition of this working group, no one was surprised by its finding:

“The Working Group noted that a causal association between exposure to asbestos and cancer of the ovary was clearly established, based on five strongly positive cohort mortality studies of women with heavy occupational exposure to asbestos (Acheson et al., 1982; Wignall & Fox, 1982; Germani et al., 1999; Berry et al., 2000; Magnani et al., 2008). The conclusion received additional support from studies showing that women and girls with environmental, but not occupational exposure to asbestos (Ferrante et al., 2007; Reid et al., 2008, 2009) had positive, though non-significant, increases in both ovarian cancer incidence and mortality.”[6]

The herd mentality is fairly strong in the world of occupational medicine, but not everyone concurred. A group of Australian asbestos researchers (Reid, et al.) without lawsuit industry credentials published another meta-analysis in 2011, as well.[7] Although the Australian researchers reported an increased summary estimate of risk, they were careful to point out that this elevation may have resulted from disease misclassification:

“In the studies that did not examine ovarian cancer pathology, or confirmed cases of mesothelioma from a cancer or mesothelioma registry, misclassification of the cause of death in some cases is likely to have occurred, given that misclassification was reported in those studies that did reexamine cancer pathology specimens. Misclassification may result in an underestimate of peritoneal mesothelioma and an overestimate of ovarian cancer or the converse. Among women, peritoneal mesothelioma may be more likely to be classified as ovarian, colon, or stomach cancer, rather than a rare occupational cancer.”[8]

The authors noted that Irving Selikoff had first reported that a significant number of peritoneal cancers, likely mesothelial in origin, have been misclassified as ovarian cancers. Studies that relied upon death certificates only might thus be very misleading. Supporting the danger of misclassification, the Reid study reported that:

“Only the meta-analysis of those studies that reported ovarian cancer incidence (i.e., those studies that did not rely on cause of death certification to classify their cases of ovarian cancer) did not observe a significant excess risk.”[9]

Reid also reported the absence of other indicia of causation:

“No study showed a statistically significant trend  of ovarian cancer with degree of asbestos exposure. In addition, there was no evidence of a significant trend across studies as grouped exposure increased.”[10]

Other scientists and physicians have acknowledged the controversial nature of the IARC’s determination. In 2011, pathologist Samuel Hammar, who has testified regularly for the lawsuit industry, voiced concerns about the diagnostic accuracy of ovarian cancer cases in asbestos studies:

“It has been difficult to draw conclusions on the basis of epidemiologic studies of ovarian cancers because, histologically, their distinction between peritoneal mesothelioma and carcinomatous peritonei (including primary peritoneal serous papillary adenocarcinoma) is difficult. Ovarian tumors tend to grow by extension and uncommonly metastasize through the bloodstream, which is similar to tumors of mesothelial origin … .”[11]

In 2014, a working group of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health noted that “despite the conclusions by IARC and the support from recent studies, the hypothesis that asbestos is [a] cause of ovarian cancer remains controversial.”[12] The same year, 2014, the relevant chapter in a leading textbook by Dr. Victor L. Roggli and colleagues opined that:

“the balance of the evidence available at present does not support an association between asbestos exposure and cancers of the female reproductive system.”[13]

Two years later, a text by Dr. Dorsett D. Smith cited “the lack of certainty of the pathologic diagnosis of ovarian cancer versus a peritoneal mesothelioma in epidemiologic studies” as making the epidemiology uninterpretable and any conclusions impossible.[14]

Against this backdrop of evidence, I took a look at what Johnson & Johnson had to say about the occupational asbestos epidemiology in its briefs, in section “B. Studies on asbestos and ovarian cancer.”[15] The defense acknowledged that plaintiffs’ expert witnesses Drs. Jacqueline Moline and Dean Felsher focused on the IARC conclusion, and on studies of heavy occupational exposure. J & J recited without comment or criticism what plaintiffs’ expert witnesses had testified, much of which was quite objectionable.[16]

For instance, Moline and Felsher both reprised the scientifically and judicially debunked views that there is “no known safe level of exposure,” from which they inferred the non-sequitur that “any amount above ordinary background levels – could cause ovarian cancer.”[17] From ignorance, nothing derives but conjecture.

Another example was Felsher’s testimony that asbestos can make the body of an ovarian cancer patient therapy-resistant. In response to these and other remarkable assertions, J & J countered with only the statement that their expert witness, Dr. Huh, “did not agree that all of this was true in the context of ovarian cancer.”[18]

Huh, indeed; that the defense expert witness disagree with some of what plaintiffs’ witnesses claimed hardly frames an issue for exclusion of any expert witness’s opinion. Even more disturbing, there is no appellate point that corresponds to a motion to exclude Dr Moline’s testimony.

The Egilman Challenge

There was a challenge to the testimony of another expert witness, David Egilman, a frequent testifier for Mark Lanier and other lawsuit industrialists. One of the challenges that the defendants made on appeal to the admissibility of Dr. David Egilman’s testimony was his use of a 1972 NIOSH study that apparently quantified exposure in terms of fibers per cubic centimeter, without specifying whether all fibers in the measurement were asbestos fibers, as opposed to non-asbestos fibers, including talc fibers.

The Missouri Court of Appeals rejected this specificc challenge in part because Egilman had explained that:

“whether the 1972 NIOSH study identified fibers specifically as ‘asbestos’ was inconsequential, as the only other possible fiber that could be present in a talc sample is a ‘talc fiber, which is chemically identical to anthophyllite asbestos and structurally the same’.”[19]

Talc typically crystallizes in small plates, but it can occur occasionally as fibers. Egilman, however, equated a talc fiber as chemically and structurally identical to an anthophyllite fiber.

Does Egilman’s opinion hold water?

No, Egilman has wet himself badly (assuming the Missouri appellate court quoted testimony accurately).

According to the Mineralogical Society of America’s Handbook of Mineralogy (and every other standard work on mineralogy I reviewed), anthophyllite and talc, whether in fibrous habit or not, are two different minerals, with very different chemical formulae, crystal chemistry, and structure.[20] Anthophyllite has the chemical formula: (Mg;Fe2+)2(Mg;Fe2+)5Si8O22(OH)2 and is an amphibole double chain silicate. Talc, on the other hand, is a phyllosilicate, a hydrated magnesium silicate with the chemical formula Mg3Si4O10(OH)2. Talc crystallizes in the triclinic class, although sometimes monoclinic, and crystals are platy and very soft.

If the Missouri Court of Appeals characterized Egilman’s testimony correctly on this point, then Egilman gave patently false testimony. Talc and anthophyllite are different chemically and structurally.


[1]  SeeThe Slemp Case, Part I – Jury Verdict for Plaintiff – 10 Initial Observations”; “The Slemp Case, Part 2 – Openings”; “ Slemp Trial Part 3 – The Defense Expert Witness – Huh”; “Slemp Trial Part 4 – Graham Colditz”; “ Slemp Trial Part 5 – Daniel W. Cramer”; “Lawsuit Magic – Turning Talcum into Wampum”; “Talc Litigation Supported by Slippery Expert Witness” (2017).

[2]  Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. No. ED107476, Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District (St. Louis) (June 23, 2020) (Slip op.).

[3]  Cara Salvatore, “Missouri Appeals Court Slashes $4.7B Talc Verdict Against J&J,” Law360 (June 23, 2020).

[4]  Jonathan M. Samet, et al., Asbestos: Selected Cancers Effects (I.O.M. Committee on Asbestos 2006).

[5]  International Agency for Research on Cancer, A Review of Human Carcinogens, Monograph Vol. 100, Part C: Arsenic, Metals, Fibres, and Dusts (2012).

[6]  Id. at 256. Some members followed up their controversial finding with an attempt to justify it with a meta-analysis; see M. Constanza Camargo, Leslie T. Stayner, Kurt Straif, Margarita Reina, Umaima Al-Alem, Paul A. Demers, and Philip J. Landrigan, “Occupational Exposure to Asbestos and Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-analysis,” 119 Envt’l Health Persp. 1211 (2011).

[7]  Alison Reid, Nick de Klerk, and Arthur W Musk, “Does Exposure to Asbestos Cause Ovarian Cancer? A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis,” 20 Cancer Epidemiol., Biomarkers & Prevention 1287 (2011) [Reid].

[8]  Reid at 1293, 1287.

[9]  Id. at 1293.

[10]  Id. at 1294.

[11]  Samuel Hammar, Richard A. Lemen, Douglas W. Henderson & James Leigh, “Asbestos and other cancers,” chap. 8, in Ronald F. Dodson & Samuel P. Hammar, eds., Asbestos: Risk Assessment, Epidemiology, and Health Effects 435 (2nd ed. 2011) (internal citation omitted).

[12]  Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Asbestos, Asbestosis and Cancer – Helsinki Criteria for Diagnosis and Attribution 60 (2014) (concluding that there was an increased risk in cohorts of women with “relatively high asbestos exposures”).

[13]  Faye F. Gao and Tim D. Oury, “Other Neoplasia,” chap. 8, in Tim D. Oury, Thomas A. Sporn & Victor L. Roggli, eds., in Pathology of Asbestos-Associated Diseases 177, 188 (3d ed. 2014).

[14]  Dorsett D. Smith, The Health Effects of Asbestos: An Evidence-based Approach 208 (2016).

[15]  Brief of Appellants Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., at 29, in Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, No. No. ED107476, Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District (St. Louis) (filed Sept. 6, 2019) [J&J Brief].

[16]  Id. at 30.

[17]  See Mark A. Behrens & William L. Anderson, “The ‘Any Exposure’ Theory: An Unsound Basis for Asbestos Causation and Expert Testimony,” 37 SW. U. L. Rev. 479 (2008); William L. Anderson, Lynn Levitan & Kieran Tuckley, “The ‘Any Exposure’ Theory Round II — Court Review of Minimal Exposure Expert Testimony in Asbestos and Toxic Tort Litigation Since 2008,” 22 Kans. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 1 (2012); William L. Anderson & Kieran Tuckley, “The Any Exposure Theory Round III: An Update on the State of the Case Law 2012 – 2016,” Defense Counsel J. 264 (July 2016); William L. Anderson & Kieran Tuckley, “How Much Is Enough? A Judicial Roadmap to Low Dose Causation Testimony in Asbestos and Tort Litigation,” 42 Am. J. Trial Advocacy 38 (2018).

[18]  Id. at 30.

[19]  Slip op. at 54.

[20]  John W. Anthony, Richard A. Bideaux, Kenneth W. Bladh, and Monte C. Nichols, Handbook of Mineralogy (Mineralogical Soc’y of America 2001).

David Madigan’s Graywashed Meta-Analysis in Taxotere MDL

June 12th, 2020

Once again, a meta-analysis is advanced as a basis for an expert witness’s causation opinion, and once again, the opinion is the subject of a Rule 702 challenge. The litigation is In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Products Liability Litigation, a multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding before Judge Jane Triche Milazzo, who sits on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Taxotere is the brand name for docetaxel, a chemotherapic medication used either alone or in conjunction with another chemotherapy, to treat a number of different cancers. Hair loss is a side effect of Taxotere, but in the MDL, plaintiffs claim that they have experienced permanent hair loss, which was not adequately warned about in their view. The litigation thus involved issues of exactly what “permanent” means, medical causation, adequacy of warnings in the Taxotere package insert, and warnings causation.

Defendant Sanofi challenged plaintiffs’ statistical expert witness, David Madigan, a frequent testifier for the lawsuit industry. In its Rule 702 motion, Sanofi argued that Madigan had relied upon two randomized clinical trials (TAX 316 and GEICAM 9805) that evaluated “ongoing alopecia” to reach conclusions about “permanent alopecia.” Sanofi made the point that “ongoing” is not “permanent,” and that trial participants who had ongoing alopecia may have had their hair grow back. Madigan’s reliance upon an end point different from what plaintiffs complained about made his analysis irrelevant. The MDL court rejected Sanofi’s argument, with the observation that Madigan’s analysis was not irrelevant for using the wrong end point, only less persuasive, and that Sanofi’s criticism was one that “Sanofi can highlight for the jury on cross-examination.”[1]

Did Judge Milazzo engage in judicial dodging with rejecting the relevancy argument and emphasizing the truism that Sanofi could highlight the discrepancy on cross-examination?  In the sense that the disconnect can be easily shown by highlight the different event rates for the alopecia differently defined, the Sanofi argument seems like one that a jury could easily grasp and refute. The judicial shrug, however, begs the question why the defendant should have to address a data analysis that does not support the plaintiffs’ contention about “permanence.” The federal rules are supposed to advance the finding of the truth and the fair, speedy resolution of cases.

Sanofi’s more interesting argument, from the perspective of Rule 702 case law, was its claim that Madigan had relied upon a flawed methodology in analyzing the two clinical trials:

“Sanofi emphasizes that the results of each study individually produced no statistically significant results. Sanofi argues that Dr. Madigan cannot now combine the results of the studies to achieve statistical significance. The Court rejects Sanofi’s argument and finds that Sanofi’s concern goes to the weight of Dr. Madigan’s testimony, not to its admissibility.34”[2]

There seems to be a lot going on in the Rule 702 challenge that is not revealed in the cryptic language of the MDL district court. First, the court deployed the jurisprudentially horrific, conclusory language to dismiss a challenge that “goes to the weight …, not to … admissibility.” As discussed elsewhere, this judicial locution is rarely true, fails to explain the decision, and shows a lack of engagement with the actual challenge.[3] Of course, aside from the inanity of the expression, and the failure to explain or justify the denial of the Rule 702 challenge, the MDL court may have been able to provide a perfectly adequately explanation.

Second, the footnote in the quoted language, number 34, was to the infamous Milward case,[4] with the explanatory parenthetical that the First Circuit had reversed a district court for excluding testimony of an expert witness who had sought to “draw conclusions based on combination of studies, finding that alleged flaws identified by district court go to weight of testimony not admissibility.”[5] As discussed previously, the widespread use of the “weight not admissibility” locution, even by the Court of Appeals, does not justify it. More important, however, the invocation of Milward suggests that any alleged flaws in combining study results in a meta-analysis are always matters for the jury, no matter how arcane, technical, or threatening to validity they may be.

So was Judge Milazzo engaged in judicial dodging in Her Honor’s opinion in Taxotere? Although the citation to Milward tends to inculpate, the cursory description of the challenge raises questions whether the challenge itself was valid in the first place. Fortunately, in this era of electronic dockets, finding the actual Rule 702 motion is not very difficult, and we can inspect the challenge to see whether it was dodged or given short shrift. Remarkably, the reality is much more complicated than the simple, simplistic rejection by the MDL court would suggest.

Sanofi’s brief attacks three separate analyses proffered by David Madigan, and not surprisingly, the MDL court did not address every point made by Sanofi.[6] Sanofi’s point about the inappropriateness of conducting the meta-analysis was its third in its supporting brief:

“Third, Dr. Madigan conducted a statistical analysis on the TAX316 and GEICAM9805/TAX301 clinical trials separately and combined them to do a ‘meta-analysis’. But Dr. Madigan based his analysis on unproven assumptions, rendering his methodology unreliable. Even without those assumptions, Dr. Madigan did not find statistical significance for either of the clinical trials independently, making this analysis unhelpful to the trier of fact.”[7]

This introductory statement of the issue is itself not particularly helpful because it fails to explain why combining two individual clinical trials (“RCTs”), each not having “statistically significant” results, by meta-analysis would be unhelpful. Sanofi’s brief identified other problems with Madigan’s analyses, but eventually returned to the meta-analysis issue, with the heading:

“Dr. Madigan’s analysis of the individual clinical trials did not result in statistical significance, thus is unhelpful to the jury and will unfairly prejudice Sanofi.”[8]

After a discussion of some of the case law about statistical significance, Sanofi pressed its case against Madigan. Madigan’s statistical analysis of each of two RCTs apparently did not reach statistical significance, and Sanofi complained that permitting Madigan to present these two analyses with results that were “not statistically very impressive,” would confuse and mislead the jury.[9]

“Dr. Madigan tried to avoid that result here [of having two statistically non-significant results] by conducting a ‘meta-analysis’ — a greywashed term meaning that he combined two statistically insignificant results to try to achieve statistical significance. Madigan Report at 20 ¶ 53. Courts have held that meta-analyses are admissible, but only when used to reduce the numerical instability on existing statistically significant differences, not as a means to achieve statistical significance where it does not exist. RMSE at 361–362, fn76.”

Now the claims here are quite unsettling, especially considering that they were lodged in a defense brief, in an MDL, with many cases at stake, made on behalf of an important pharmaceutical company, represented by two large, capable national or international law firms.

First, what does the defense brief signify by placing ‘meta-analysis’ in quotes. Are these scare quotes to suggest that Madigan was passing off something as a meta-analysis that failed to be one? If so, there is nothing in the remainder of the brief that explains such an interpretation. Meta-analysis has been around for decades, and reporting meta-analyses of observational or of experimental studies has been the subject of numerous consensus and standard-setting papers over the last two decades. Furthermore, the FDA has now issued a draft guidance for the use of meta-analyses in pharmacoepidemiology. Scare quotes are at best unexplained, at worst, inappropriate. If the authors had something else in mind, they did not explain the meaning of using quotes around meta-analysis.

Second, the defense lawyers referred to meta-analysis as a “greywashed” term. I am always eager to expand my vocabulary, and so I looked up the word in various dictionaries of statistical and epidemiologic terms. Nothing there. Perhaps it was not a technical term, so I checked with the venerable Oxford English Dictionary. No relevant entries.

Pushed to the wall, I checked the font of all knowledge – the internet. To be sure, I found definitions, but nothing that could explain this odd locution in a brief filed in an important motion:

gray-washing: “noun In calico-bleaching, an operation following the singeing, consisting of washing in pure water in order to wet out the cloth and render it more absorbent, and also to remove some of the weavers’ dressing.”

graywashed: “adj. adopting all the world’s cultures but not really belonging to any of them; in essence, liking a little bit of everything but not everything of a little bit.”

Those definitions do not appear pertinent.

Another website offered a definition based upon the “blogsphere”:

Graywash: “A fairly new term in the blogsphere, this means an investigation that deals with an offense strongly, but not strongly enough in the eyes of the speaker.”

Hmmm. Still not on point.

Another one from “Urban Dictionary” might capture something of what was being implied:

Graywashing: “The deliberate, malicious act of making art having characters appear much older and uglier than they are in the book, television, or video game series.”

Still, I am not sure how this is an argument that a federal judge can respond to in a motion affecting many cases.

Perhaps, you say, I am quibbling with word choices, and I am not sufficiently in tune with the way people talk in the Eastern District of Louisiana. I plead guilty to both counts. But the third, and most important point, is the defense assertion that meta-analyses are only admissible “when used to reduce the numerical instability on existing statistically significant differences, not as a means to achieve statistical significance where it does not exist.”

This assertion is truly puzzling. Meta-analyses involve so many layers of hearsay that they will virtually never be admissible. Admissibility of the meta-analyses is virtually never the issue. When an expert witness has conducted a meta-analysis, or has relied upon one, the important legal question is whether the witness may reasonably rely upon the meta-analysis (under Rule 703) for an inference that satisfies Rule 702. The meta-analysis itself does not come into evidence, and does not go out to the jury for its deliberations.

But what about the defense brief’s “only when” language that clearly implies that courts have held that expert witnesses may rely upon meta-analyses only to reduce “numerical instability on existing statistically significant differences”? This seems clearly wrong because achieving statistical significance from studies that have no “instability” for their point estimates but individually lack statistical significance is a perfectly legitimate and valid goal. Consider a situation in which, for some reason, sample size in each study is limited by the available observations, but we have 10 studies, each with a point estimate of 1.5, and each with a 95% confidence interval of (0.88, 2.5). This hypothetical situation presents no instability of point estimates, and the meta-analytical summary point estimate would shrink the confidence interval so that the lower bound would exclude 1.0, in a perfectly valid analysis. In the real world, meta-analyses are conducted on studies with point estimates of risk that vary, because of random and non-random error, but there is no reason that meta-analyses cannot reduce random error to show that the summary point estimate is statistically significant at a pre-specified alpha, even though no constituent study was statistically significant.

Sanofi’s lawyers did not cite to any case for the remarkable proposition they advanced, but they did cite the Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence (RMSE). Earlier in the brief, the defense cited to this work in its third edition (2011), and so I turned to the cited page (“RMSE at 361–362, fn76”) only to find the introduction to the chapter on survey research, with footnotes 1 through 6.

After a diligent search through the third edition, I could not find any other language remotely supportive of the assertion by Sanofi’s counsel. There are important discussions about how a poorly conducted meta-analysis, or a meta-analysis that was heavily weighted in a direction by a methodologically flawed study, could render an expert witness’s opinion inadmissible under Rule 702.[10] Indeed, the third edition has a more sustained discussion of meta-analysis under the heading “VI. What Methods Exist for Combining the Results of Multiple Studies,”[11] but nothing in that discussion comes close to supporting the remarkable assertion by defense counsel.

On a hunch, I checked the second edition of RMSE, published in the year 2000. There was indeed a footnote 76, on page 361, which discussed meta-analysis. The discussion comes in the midst of the superseded edition’s chapter on epidemiology. Nothing, however, in the text or in the cited footnote appears to support the defense’s contention about meta-analyses are appropriate only when each included clinical trial has independently reported a statistically significant result.

If this analysis is correct, the MDL court was fully justified in rejecting the defense argument that combining two statistically non-significant clinical trials to yield a statistically significant result was methodologically infirm. No cases were cited, and the Reference Manual does not support the contention. Furthermore, no statistical text or treatise on meta-analysis supports the Sanofi claim. Sanofi did not support its motion with any affidavits of experts on meta-analysis.

Now there were other arguments advanced in support of excluding David Madigan’s testimony. Indeed, there was a very strong methodological challenge to Madigan’s decision to include the two RCTs in his meta-analysis, other than those RCTs lack of statistical significance on the end point at issue. In the words of the Sanofi brief:

“Both TAX clinical trials examined two different treatment regimens, TAC (docetaxel in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide) versus FAC (5-fluorouracil in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide). Madigan Report at 18–19 ¶¶ 47–48. Dr. Madigan admitted that TAC is not Taxotere alone, Madigan Dep. 305:21–23 (Ex. B); however, he did not rule out doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide in his analysis. Madigan Dep. 284:4–12 (“Q. You can’t rule out other chemotherapies as causes of irreversible alopecia? … A. I can’t rule out — I do not know, one way or another, whether other chemotherapy agents cause irreversible alopecia.”).”[12]

Now unlike the statistical significance argument, this argument is rather straightforward and turns on the clinical heterogeneity of the two trials that seems to clearly point to the invalidity of a meta-analysis of them. Sanofi’s lawyers could have easily supported this point with statements from standard textbooks and non-testifying experts (but alas did not). Sanofi did support their challenge, however, with citations to an important litigation and Fifth Circuit precedent.[13]

This closer look at the actual challenge to David Madigan’s opinions suggests that Sanofi’s counsel may have diluted very strong arguments about heterogeneity in exposure variable, and in the outcome variable, by advancing what seems a very doubtful argument based upon the lack of statistical significance of the individual studies in the Madigan meta-analysis.

Sanofi advanced two very strong points, first about the irrelevant outcome variable definitions used by Madigan, and second about the complexity of Taxotere’s being used with other, and different, chemotherapeutic agents in each of the two trials that Madigan combined.[14] The MDL court addressed the first point in a perfunctory and ultimately unsatisfactory fashion, but did not address the second point at all.

Ultimately, the result was that Madigan was given a pass to offer extremely tenuous opinions in an MDL on causation. Given that Madigan has proffered tendentious opinions in the past, and has been characterized as “an expert on a mission,” whose opinions are “conclusion driven,”[15] the missteps in the briefing, and the MDL court’s abridgement of the gatekeeping process are regrettable. Also regrettable is that the merits or demerits of a Rule 702 challenge cannot be fairly evaluated from cursory, conclusory judicial decisions riddled with meaningless verbiage such as “the challenge goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the witness.” Access to the actual Rule 702 motion helped shed important light on the inadequacy of one point in the motion but also the complexity and fullness of the challenge that was not fully addressed in the MDL court’s decision. It is possible that a Reply or a Supplemental brief, or oral argument, may have filled in gaps, corrected errors, or modified the motion, and the above analysis missed some important aspect of what happened in the Taxotere MDL. If so, all the more reason that we need better judicial gatekeeping, especially when a decision can affect thousands of pending cases.[16]


[1]  In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143642, at *13 (E.D. La. Aug. 23, 2019) [Op.]

[2]  Op. at *13-14.

[3]  “Judicial Dodgers – Weight not Admissibility” (May 28, 2020).

[4]  Milward v. Acuity Specialty Prods. Grp., Inc., 639 F.3d 11, 17-22 (1st Cir. 2011).

[5]  Op. at *13-14 (quoting and citing Milward, 639 F.3d at 17-22).

[6]  Memorandum in Support of Sanofi Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of David Madigan, Ph.D., Document 6144, in In re Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liab. Litig. (E.D. La. Feb. 8, 2019) [Brief].

[7]  Brief at 2; see also Brief at 14 (restating without initially explaining why combining two statistically non-significant RCTs by meta-analysis would be unhelpful).

[8]  Brief at 16.

[9]  Brief at 17 (quoting from Madigan Dep. 256:14–15).

[10]  Michael D. Green, Michael Freedman, and Leon Gordis, “Reference Guide on Epidemiology,” at 581n.89, in Fed. Jud. Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (3d ed. 2011).

[11]  Id. at 606.

[12]  Brief at 14.

[13]  Brief at 14, citing Burst v. Shell Oil Co., C. A. No. 14–109, 2015 WL 3755953, at *7 (E.D. La. June 16, 2015) (Vance, J.) (quoting LeBlanc v. Chevron USA, Inc., 396 F. App’x 94, 99 (5th Cir. 2010)) (“[A] study that notes ‘that the subjects were exposed to a range of substances and then nonspecifically note[s] increases in disease incidence’ can be disregarded.”), aff’d, 650 F. App’x 170 (5th Cir. 2016). SeeThe One Percent Non-solution – Infante Fuels His Own Exclusion in Gasoline Leukemia Case” (June 25, 2015).

[14]  Brief at 14-16.

[15]  In re Accutane Litig., 2015 WL 753674, at *19 (N.J.L.Div., Atlantic Cty., Feb. 20, 2015), aff’d, 234 N.J. 340, 191 A.3d 560 (2018). SeeJohnson of Accutane – Keeping the Gate in the Garden State” (Mar. 28, 2015); “N.J. Supreme Court Uproots Weeds in Garden State’s Law of Expert Witnesses” (Aug. 8, 2018).

[16]  Cara Salvatore, “Sanofi Beats First Bellwether In Chemo Drug Hair Loss MDL,” Law360 (Sept. 27, 2019).

Legal Remedies for Suspect Medical Science in Products Cases – Part Three

June 5th, 2020

 Legislative Initiatives – The Asbestos Fairness in Compensation Act

Over the years, Congress has considered various possible solutions to the problem of asbestos liability. One proposed reform bill, which bore the title “Asbestos Fairness in Compensation Act,” was specifically motivated by a concern about the quality of the expert opinions that fueled the asbestos litigation tsunami.[1] The Report by the Senate Judiciary Committee for this bill commented on its view of medical testimony in asbestos cases:

“Defendants’ rights are further compromised when courts lack the resources to monitor the medical evidence submitted by plaintiffs.  A study by neutral academics showed that forty-one (41 %) percent of audited claims of alleged asbestosis or pleural disease were found by trust physicians to have either no disease or a less severe disease than alleged by the plaintiffs’ experts (for example, pleural disease rather than asbestosis).”[2]

A key part of the bill sought to establish a process to ensure that claims would be based upon sound medical science.  As the Senate Report explained the legislative goal:

4. Diagnostic and latency criteria

Asbestos claimants must meet diagnostic and latency criteria to be compensated by the Fund.  The diagnostic criteria should reflect the typical components of a true medical diagnosis by a claimant’s doctor, including an in-person physical examination (or pathology in the case where the injured person is deceased) and a review of the claimant’s medical, smoking and exposure history by the doctor diagnosing an asbestos-related disease.  These requirements ensure that the claimant will be given a meaningful diagnosis related to the claimant’s condition.  The diagnosis must also include consideration of other more likely causes of the condition to ensure that asbestos exposure was the cause of any claimed nonmalignant disease (as opposed to other industrial dust exposure) or a substantial contributing factor in causing a malignant disease….”[3]

A number of the bill’s specific provisions sought to limit payments to only claimants who could qualify under properly validated medical criteria. This bill, like all those before it, died on the Hill.

The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986

In 1986, Congress passed the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (“HCQIA”)[4], which was prompted by concerns that fear of litigation would deter hospitals, physicians and others from carrying out peer review of unprofessional conduct and from providing candid assessments to peer review bodies.  The Act gave all participants in a qualifying “professional review action” immunity from being held liable in damages “under any law of the United States or of any State (or political subdivision thereof) with respect to the action.”[5]  One of the immunized entities is a “professional review body,” a term defined by HCQIA to mean “a health care entity and the governing body or any committee of a health care entity which conducts professional review activity, and includes any committee of the medical staff of such an entity when assisting the governing body in a professional review activity.”[6]  Moreover, another provision of the Act[7] provides immunity from damages to any person “providing information to a professional review body regarding the competence or professional conduct of a physician. . . .unless such information is false and the person providing it knew such information was false.”

The HCQIA has given rise to litigation over whether it protects professional review bodies from defamation cases involving litigation opinions. If medico-legal opinions are within the scope of the practice of medicine, then a potentially important method for curbing unscrupulous expert witnesses and false or exaggerated opinion testimony might consist of peer review actions through professional associations or state medical boards.

In Florida litigation, an intermediate appellate court held that the Florida Medical Association did not have immunity under the HCQIA for having provided procedures for pressing complaints against medical expert witnesses for unprofessional conduct.[8] The state law that might be invoked to curb meretricious testimony by licensed physicians, through professional associations or medical licensing boards, remains a hodge-podge.[9]

The American Bar Association’s Resolution Condemning Screenings and Calling For Impairment Criteria in Asbestos Litigation

Part of the impetus for federal legislative reform of asbestos litigation and its diagnostic gamesmanship came from an American Bar Association (ABA) recommendation of enacting impairment requirements for asbestos non-malignant personal injury cases.[10]  Acting upon concerns of court dockets backlogged by unimpaired and false-positive and bogus asbestosis cases, many of which arose out of mass screenings, the ABA urged that limitations rules be relaxed so as not to require the filing of unimpaired cases and that compensation be limited to cases that have demonstrable objective evidence of physical impairment due to asbestosis.  The ABA Report helped to instigate asbestos tort reform efforts in Congress, as well as several successful state legislative efforts.

State Tort Reform Acts for Reliable Diagnostic and Impairment Criteria in Asbestos and Silica Cases

While Congress floundered on litigation reform of the asbestos racket, several states enacted meaningful procedural and substantive changes to address some of the more abusive medical screening practices in asbestos and silica cases.  Texas, Georgia, Florida, and Ohio have enacted remedial legislation that requires a demonstration of objective pulmonary impairment.  In some instances, the tort reform measures specify that the diagnosing physician have a patient-physician relationship with the claimant.  This requirement was aimed at chilling the efforts of itinerant, out-of-state screening physicians, whose conduct came under scrutiny in In re Silica.[11]

Daubert, Its Progeny, and Amended Rule of Evidence 702

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Daubert was not only a watershed in the analysis of expert evidence generally but also reflected specific concerns about expert testimony in the area of product liability litigation. Daubert itself was a pharmaceutical product liability case, as were Joiner and Kumho Tire.  Medical causation is one of the key issues in every product liability case, and the pressure to produce an opinion, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, will occasionally distort a fragile epistemic foundation that will not support a conclusion with any certainty.  In In re Silica, the prospect of creating a mass tort out of whole cloth seems to have had just such a distorting influence.[12]

As noted by Judge Jack, in making the reliability inquiry, the trial judge has the responsibility “to make certain that an expert … employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.”[13] Typically, this requirement of “intellectual rigor” means that physicians proffering a diagnosis for litigation purposes must employ the same standards and practices in reaching that diagnosis that they would use in their regular, non-litigation practice of medicine.

Judge Jack was not writing on a completely blank slate in finding the silicosis diagnoses to be bogus in the MDL cases. A few years earlier, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of a physician expert witness who insisted upon a “hands-on” examination in his medical practice, but who did not bother to examine the plaintiff personally in a case involving a failed spinal fusion.[14] Standing alone, the physician expert witness’s failure to conduct a physical examination might not have required exclusion, but the deviation from his own established, non-litigation practice provided a persuasive showing that the expert witness “did not employ in the courtroom the same methods that he employs in his own practice,” which required exclusion.[15]

A similar example of gatekeeping occurred in Ingram v. Solkatronic Chemical, Inc.,[16] where the trial judge excluded the testimony of a medical expert witness who opined that plaintiff had been injured by exposure to arsine gas.  At his deposition, the expert witness “outlined his standard diagnostic protocol when called upon to evaluate a cause of a given physical ailment.”[17]  The witness’s own protocol included taking a medical history, performing a physical examination, and determining what tests were required.  This protocol starkly contrasted with the expert witness’s anemic litigation approach to diagnosis, which failed to include physical examinations or review of complete medical or occupational histories.  Finding that the expert’s procedures “depart[ed] from his own established diagnostic standards,” the court excluded his testimony.[18]


[1]  S. 852, 109th Congress, 1st Session, and Senate Judiciary Comm. Report (June 30, 2005).

[2]  Id. at 21.

[3]  Id. at 34.

[4]  42 U.S.C. §§ 11101, et seq.

[5]  42 U.S.C. § 11111(a)(1).

[6]  42 U.S.C. § 11151(11).

[7]  42 U.S.C. § 11111(a)(2)/

[8]  Fullerton v. The Florida Med. Ass’n, 938 So.2d 587 (Fla. D. Ct. App. 2006). See also Adam Liptak, “Doctor’s Testimony Leads To a Complex Legal Fight,” N.Y. Times (June 20, 2004).

[9]  See, e.g., Sandeep K. Narang & Stephan R. Paul, “Expert Witness Participation in Civil and Criminal Proceedings,” 139 Pediatrics e1 (2017); Robert A. Bitterman, “Halting inappropriate expert witness testimony – Part I: Professional associations’ efforts to police ‘experts’,” Relias Media (Jan. 1, 2007); Robert A. Bitterman, “Halting Inappropriate Expert Witness Testimony — Part II: Efforts of State Medical Boards and State Medical Societies to Police ‘Experts’,” Relias Media (Feb. 1, 2007); Robert A. Bitterman, “Halting inappropriate expert witness testimony ? Part III: Tort reform to prevent not-so-expert opinions,” Relias Media (Mar. 1, 2007).

[10]  See ABA Commission on Asbestos Litigation, Report to the House of Delegates (Report No. 302) (February 2003).

[11]  For discussion of some of the state legislative reform, see Mark A. Behrens, “What’s New in Asbestos Litigation?” 28 Rev. Litig. 501 (2009); Jeb Barnes, “Rethinking the Landscape of Tort Reform: Legislative Inertia and Court-Base Tort Reform in the Case of Asbestos,” 28 The Justice System J. 157 (2007); Jeb Barnes, Dust-Up: Asbestos Litigation and the Failure of Commonsense Policy Reform (2011).

[12]  In re Silica Prods. Liab. Litig., 398 F.Supp. 2d 563 (S.D. Tex. 2005).

[13]  Id. at 621, quoting Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999). 

[14]  Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 259 F.3d 194, 203 (4th Cir. 2001).

[15]  Id.

[16]  2005 WL 3544244 (N.D. Okla., Dec. 28, 2005),

[17]  Id. at *13.

[18]  Id. at *14.  See also Goebel v. Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Co., 346 F.3d 987, 998 (10th Cir. 2003) (upholding admissibility of opinion of medical expert witness who “followed ‘standard medical procedure in evaluating and diagnosing’ [plaintiff]”) (internal quotations omitted); Fitzgerald v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 1999 WL 1489199 (D. Md., Dec. 30, 1999), aff’d, 11 Fed. Appx. 335, 339 (4th Cir. 2001) (excluding opinion of medical expert who testified that clinical judgment requires personal contact with patient, but who failed to examine the plaintiff or review her complete medical history; finding that the expert “did not undertake his medical review and formulate his opinions with ‘intellectual rigor’”); Wooley v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 67 F. Supp. 2d 703, 709 (S.D. Tex. 1999) (excluding testimony of medical expert witness who had not examined plaintiff, and who relied on his review of medical records selected by  plaintiff’s counsel; concluding that “no expert orthopedic surgeon would attempt to make an accurate and complete diagnosis as to the probable cause of postoperative spinal injury without interviewing or examining the patient or considering the entirety of a patient’s records”).