Schachtman Law » 2012

TORTINI

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

Unraveling the “Master Historical Narrative” of Asbestos

October 6th, 2012

Sheila Scheuerman at the TortsProf Blog has posted a note about a forthcoming article by Rachel Maines, of the Cornell School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, entitled “The Asbestos Litigation Master Narrative: Building Codes, Engineering Standards, and ‘Retroactive Inculpation’.” The article was published “in press,” in August, and is slated to appear in an upcoming issue of Enterprise & Society.

Prof. Scheuerman has kindly provided a link to the in-press version of Professor Maines’ article: Download Maines Asbestos Litigation Master Narrative 2012. Several years ago, Professor Maines published a book that challenged the asbestos dogmas created in the occupational health community, and by plaintiffs’ counsel and their expert witnesses. R. Maines, Asbestos and Fire: Technological Trade-offs and the Body at Risk (Rutgers Univ. Press 2005). In her forthcoming article, Maines extends the thesis of her book, to explore how plaintiffs’ counsel conspired with their expert witnesses, such as Barry Castleman, to create what she calls “The Asbestos Litigation Master Narrative,” which involves the “retroactive inculpation” of industry for manufacturing asbestos-containing products. Her article explores how building codes, engineering standards, and federal regulations specified the use of asbestos in various products, for health and safety reasons. These codes, standards, and regulations represent a broad and deep consensus that asbestos could and should be used safely because of its important physical properties.

Maines notes that her search of LexisNexis revealed only two asbestos cases in which courts referenced building codes as standards that weighed against the plaintiffs’ constructed narrative of conspiracy tales and supposedly established historical knowledge of asbestos hazards. She seems to imply that defense counsel have not done enough to put the legal and regulatory insistence upon asbestos use before courts and juries, which must employ the retrospectoscope to assess past knowledge and exercise of due care.

While Maines presents a valuable and engaging counter-narrative, with careful historical scholarship, her implied criticism of the defense bar is unwarranted. In several key states (NJ and PA), where many asbestos cases have been tried, a combination of hyper-strict liability and trial bifurcation has kept juries from hearing the kind of evidence that Maines outlines. For many years, reverse bifurcation was mandated in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Causation and damages were litigated in the first phase of trial; liability in the second. Plaintiffs’ counsel sometimes played an ancient videotaped deposition of Dr. Katherine Sturgis, and the defense often did not respond, perhaps because Dr. Sturgis was so lackluster, and because most juries had a hard time in any event finding for the defense after they committed to a causation and damages verdict.

There were notable exceptions. One judge who took cases from the Mass Tort Program was the Hon. Levan Gordon, who resisted the MTP prescription for reverse bifurcation, and who tried cases “all issues.” In one case Tom Hanna and I tried against now Judge Sandy Byrd, back in May 1989, O’Donnell v. The Celotex Corp., Phila. Cty. Ct.C.P., July 1982 Term, Case. No. 1619, Judge Gordon followed his practice of trying cases all-issues, and I was thus able to put on a “state-of-the-art” defense, along with evidence of U.S. Navy military specifications for asbestos in insulation products. The plaintiffs’ product identification witness, Mr. George Rabuck, unexpectedly cooperated by offering a story of a shake-down cruise of a Navy vessel, in which the insulators had not covered a stretch of steam pipe with insulation. When a nearby oil valve broke, spraying oil onto the uninsulated pipe, a fire erupted, and two sailors died before it could be extinguish. I was able to have Mr. Rabuck agree that a fire on a ship was a terrible thing, and in my closing argument, I was able to paint the picture of the two dead sailors who taken off the ship in body bags because someone forgot to use asbestos. I felt that the risk-utility balance had been restored. Perhaps the jury did as well; they returned a general verdict for the defense.

I tell the war story, not only because it was one of my favorite trials, but also because the defense used evidence of governmental insistence upon procurement and use of asbestos-containing insulation. I am confident that many other defense lawyers have used similar mil-spec evidence as well, along with evidence of the U.S. government’s very deep knowledge of the potential hazards of asbestos.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Unraveling the “Master Historical Narrative” of Asbestos

Sand in My Shoes

October 4th, 2012

Sharon L. Caffrey, Kenneth M. Argentieri and Julie S. Greenberg, of Duane Morris LLP, have written a piece for Law360, in which they suggest that the recent violations of the OSHA silica permissible exposure limit (PEL) by the fracking industry may lead to new silicosis claims. “Another Wave Of Silicosis Claims May Be On The Horizon” (Oct. 3, 2012)

Silicosis has been a preventable disorder for over half a century. There will, however, always be silicosis cases because there will always be people who do not follow basic industrial hygiene principles. Negligent employers will overexpose their workers. Negligent workers will ignore workplace safety rules.

But silicosis cases do not translate into valid claims. The essence of silicosis products liability claims is a failure to warn, and there is no basis in this millennium (and for the last few decades of the last millennium) for maintaining failure-to-warn claim against silica sand suppliers.

Caffrey and colleagues discuss the fraudulent claiming activity that resulted in Judge Jacks’ rebuke to the tort litigation industry in MDL 1553. In re Silica Products Liab. Lit., 398 F. Supp. 2d 563 (S.D. Tex. 2005). Judge Jack’s excellent gatekeeping and her opinion on litigation-sponsored medical screenings helped suppress an outbreak of silicosis litigation, but Her Honor actually worried that the bogus cases would obscure the real cases. There are, however, no real cases of failure to warn in the context of silicosis claims. In 1949, the U. S. Supreme Court, following the lead of the New York Court of Appeals, declared it to be a matter of common knowledge that breathing silica dust “is injurious to the lungs and dangerous to health,” a fact the plaintiff’s employer “was bound to know.” Urie v. Thomas, 337 U.S. 163, 180 (1949), citing Sadowski v. Long Island R.R., 292 N.Y. 448, 456 (1944). Selling sand no more requires a warning than selling a set of kitchen knives.

Today, warnings in connection with bulk sales of silica should be nothing more than regulatory and litigation eye candy – supererogatory acts intended to ward off plaintiffs’ lawyers. For the last two decades, the warnings have been frequent, intense, detailed, and lengthy. Material Safety Data Sheets are often 10 to 15 pages long. The silica exposures above PEL in the fracking industry, reported recent by NIOSH, took place at worksites managed by Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, and similar companies. These companies have the knowledge and resources to provide a safe workplace. They have had common law duties to control silica exposures for over a century. Most states introduced regulations that mandated limits in silica exposure by the 1950s. Government contractors had similar duties under the Walsh-Healey Act, and virtually all employers have been under a federal mandate to provide a safe workplace for the use of silica sand, since the effective date of the federal Occupational Health & Safety Act of 1970.

Caffrey and colleagues correctly note that OSHA has issued a Hazard Alert about exposures above the Permissible Exposure Limit in the fracking industry. OSHA Hazard Alert for Crystalline Silica Exposures from Shale Gas Fracturing (June 22, 2012). The lawyers’ discussion of the claim proliferation in MDL 1553 suggests that they were thinking of civil actions against suppliers. There may be claims in the future, but the only legitimate claims will be workman’s compensation claims. The recommendations made should help employers protect their employees from silicosis; better yet, the employers could just follow the law that has been in place for over 40 years.

Posted in Sophisticated User | Comments Off on Sand in My Shoes

Hop on Pop Redux – Watson Case

October 3rd, 2012

Last month, Maxwell Kennerly of the Beasley Firm in Philadelphia posted about the Watson case in his blog. See Max Kennerly, “The Science And Law Behind The $7 Million Microwave Popcorn Lung Jury Verdict” (Sept. 20, 2012). This case has attracted a lot of attention, as it well should. See “It’s Alimentary, My Dear Watson” (Sept. 20, 2012); and “Good’s Expert Witness Opinion Not Good Enough in Tenth Circuit” (Sept. 8, 2012).

Kennerly is correct that we should not lump the Watson case with other frivolous cases, such as the infamous McDonald’s hot-coffee spill case. I suppose people can debate whether McDonald’s sold their coffee at too-high a temperature, but most civilized people can agree that McDonald’s makes bad coffee, and that everyone should be careful what they put between their legs, regardless of temperature.

Watson represents a paradigmatic tort case, involving exposure and diagnostic issues common to many toxic tort cases. Mr. Watson was a mega-consumer of microwavable popcorn, flavored with diacetyl. We can assume for discussion that diacetyl can cause bronchiolitis obliterans in factory workers who are exposed at relatively high levels. There are, however, other causes, as well as idiopathic cases. Two uncertainties overlapped in the Watson case: diagnosis and exposure assessment. A treating physician pondered a differential diagnosis between hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) and bronchiolitis obliterans (BO). As a carpet cleaner, Watson had occupational exposures that might well have caused HP. Indeed, in August 2006, an open lung biopsy requested by his treating physicians, by pathologists at University Hospital, at the University of Colorado, interpreted Watson’s lung pathology as HP. In 2010, Professor Eugene Mark, a well-known pulmonary pathologist at Harvard Medical School, interpreted the pathology as “in keeping with hypersensitivity pneumonitis.” Although Dr. Mark was consulting for the defense in this case, he is not a frequent testifier, and his few forays have been almost always for plaintiffs in asbestos cancer cases. To my understanding, none of the pathologists testified at the trial.

Despite the pathology report, Watson’s treating physician, Dr. Cecile Rose, advocated that the correct diagnosis was BO. She wrote a letter to NIOSH, and other federal agencies, in which advanced her diagnosis, although she did not mention the hospital pathology. Regulators and lawyers became involved. NIOSH measurements of diacetyl in Watson’s home were below the level of detection. Another set of diacetyl measurements taken by Watson’s legal team reported levels close to that of the industrial workers who sustained BO from workplace exposure to diacetyl. The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses relied upon these measurements suggesting high exposure. Just before trial, the defense renewed its Rule 702 motion, challenging the plaintiffs’ exposure level evidence. The defendant’s motion sought preclusion of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ reliance upon data generated by an Innova Model 1312 Photoacoustic Multi-Gas Monitor. The court denied this motion, with leave to raise it at trial, and also precluded mention of the testing in front of the jury until the evidentiary matter is resolved. Order of June 22, 2012. I do not know how the court handled this important evidentiary issue at trial, and no analysis of the case is possible until this part of the story is told.

What can be said now, hypothetically, is that if the plaintiffs had no reliable evidence of high exposure, there was precious little in the exposure data to support Watson’s treating physician’s argument for BO, over HP. The treating clinician did not settle on the BO diagnosis until she had the dubious exposure data. The pathology reports consistently favored the HP diagnosis.

Watson is the third consumer diacetyl case litigated to date. The Newkirk case resulted in the 702 exclusion of plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr. Egilman. Newkirk v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (E.D.Wash. 2010), aff’d, 438 Fed.Appx. 607 (9th Cir. 2011). See also Egilman v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 10-35667, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Sept. 5, 2012; unpublished memorandum) (refusing personal appeal of expert witness who claimed defamation and “wrongful exclusion” by district court). A second case was tried to a jury verdict for the defense, and the appellate court upheld the judgment for the defense. Khoury v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 368 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Kennerly argues that Watson had proof! Referring to “evidence” as “proof” is a hyperbolic conceit of lawyers; I am sure have used the expression, as well. Outside the legal world, proofs and demonstrations are the work of geometers and mathematicians; factual propositions are usually more modestly shown or suggested by evidence. The “proof” that Kennerly cites is the testimony of Watson’s treating physician, Dr. Cecile Rose, MD, MPH, “a published expert and researcher of occupational pulmonary diseases,” who testified that the basis for her opinion:

“relates mainly to the fact that his lung disease has stabilized with the cessation of use of the product and exposure to the inhalants related with that product. The fact that there was no other causal explanation for his lung condition and the fact that the clinical findings in his lung disease were similar to those that occurred in workers who were exposed to butter flavoring also support that opinion.”

This is the same Dr. Rose who wrote to several federal regulatory agencies, to present a tendentiously abridged clinical case report of a patient with BO, who consumed thousands of bags of microwave diacetyl-flavored popcorn. Even with the serious omissions of information, and the problematic exposure measurements, Dr. Rose hedged in her attribution:

“It is difficult to make a causal connection based on a single case report. We cannot be sure that this patient’s exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease. However, we have no other plausible explanation. Given the public health implications of this possibility, we wanted to alert you to our concerns.”

To be sure, this is nothing like the McDonald’s coffee-spill case. This is a case of questioned and questionable science. Kennerly is correct; there is nothing frivolous about the Watson case. If the diagnosis were correct, and the exposure measurements were accurate, this case would raise very serious public concerns for consumer exposure to diacetyl. If the antecedents of the BO diagnosis are incorrect, then the judicial system has been snookered, again. The view from over 2,600 kilometers away suggests that the antecedent conditions were unlikely.

Posted in Causation, Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on Hop on Pop Redux – Watson Case