Schachtman Law » Asbestos

TORTINI

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

Disappearing Conflicts of Interest

October 29th, 2017

As the story of who funded the opposition research into Trumski and the Russian micturaters unfolds, both sides of the political spectrum seem obsessed with who funded the research. Funny thing that both sides had coins in the fountain. Funding is, in any event, an invalid proxy for good and sufficient reason. The public should be focused on the truth or falsity of the factual claims. The same goes in science, although more and more, science is evaluated by “conflicts of interest” (COIs) rather than by the strength of evidence and validity of inferences.

No one screams louder today about COIs than the lawsuit industry and its scientist fellow travelers. Although I believe we should rid ourselves of this obsession with COIs, to the extent we must put up with it, the obsession should at least be symmetrical, complete, and non-hypocritical.

In an in-press publication, Morris Greenberg has published an historical account of the role that the U.K. Medical Research Council had in studying asbestos health effects.¹ Greenberg often weighs in on occupational disease issues in synch with the litigation industry, and so no one will be entirely surprised that Greenberg suspects undue industry influence (not the lawsuit industry, but an industry that actually makes things). Greenberg may be right in his historical narrative and analysis, but my point today is different. What was interesting about Greenberg’s paper was the disclosure at its conclusion, by the “American Journal of Industrial Medicine editor of record”:

“Steven B. Markowitz declares that he has no conflict of interest in the review and publication decision regarding this article.”

Markowitz’s declaration is remarkable in the era when the litigation industry and its scientific allies perpetually have their knickers knotted over perceived COIs. Well known to the asbestos bar, Markowitz has testified with some regularity for plaintiffs’ lawyers and their clients. Markowitz is also an editor in chief of the “red” journal,” the American Journal of Industrial Medicine. Many of the associate editors are regular testifiers for the lawsuit industry, such as Arthur L. Frank and Richard A. Lemen.

Even more curious is that Steven Markowitz, along with fellow plaintiffs’ expert witness, Jacqueline M. Moline, recently published a case report about mesothelioma occuring in an unusual exposure situation, in the red journal. This paper appeared online in February 2017, and carried a disclosure that “[t]he authors have served as expert witnesses in cases involving asbestos tort litigation.²” A bit misleading given how both appear virtually exclusively for claimants, but still a disclosure, whereas Markowitz, qua editor of Greenberg’s article, claimed to have none.

Markowitz, as an alumnus of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, is, of course, a member of the secret handshake society of the litigation industry, the Collegium Ramazzini. At the Collegium, Markowitz proudly presents his labor union consultancies, but these union ties are not disclosed in Markowitz’s asbestos publications.

Previously, I blogged about Markowitz’s failure to make an appropriate COI disclosure in connection with an earlier asbestos paper.³ See “Conflicts of Interest in Asbestos Studies – the Plaintiffs’ Double Standard” (Sept. 18, 2013). At the time, there appeared to be no disclosure of litigation work, but I was encouraged to see, upon checking today, that Markowitz’s disclosure for his 2013 paper now reveals that he has received fees for expert testimony, from “various law firms.” A bit thin to leave out plaintiffs’ law firms, considering that the paper at issue is used regularly by Markowitz and other plaintiffs’ expert witnesses to advance their positions in asbestos cases. A more complete disclosure might read something like: “Markowitz has been paid to consult and testify in asbestos personal injury by plaintiffs’ legal counsel, and to consult for labor unions. In his testimony and consultations, he relies upon this paper and other evidence to support his opinions. This study has grown out of research that was originally funded by the asbestos workers’ union.”

Or we could just evaluate the study on its merits, or lack thereof.

1 Morris Greenberg, “Experimental asbestos studies in the UK: 1912-1950,” 60 Am. J. Indus. Med. XXX (2017) (doi: 10.1002/ajim.22762).

2 Steven B. Markowitz & Jacqueline M. Moline, “Malignant Mesothelioma Due to Asbestos Exposure in Dental Tape,” 60 Am. J. Indus. Med. 437 (2017).

3 Steven B. Markowitz, Steven M. Levin, Albert A. Miller, and Alfred Morabia, “Asbestos, asbestosis, smoking, and lung cancer. New findings from the North American insulator cohort,” 188 Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 90 (2013).

Posted in Asbestos, Conflicts of Interest, Expert Witnesses | Comments Off on Disappearing Conflicts of Interest

Seventh Circuit Franks ‘Every Exposure’ Theory for Extinction

September 11th, 2017

In Krik v. Exxon Mobil Corp., no. 15-3112, 2017 WL 3768933, Slip op. (7th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017) [slip op. cited as Krik], a jury found that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, which is not particularly noteworthy. The plaintiff, Charles Krik, however, wanted the jury to find that asbestos exposure, either alone or with his 45 pack-year smoking history caused his lung cancer. The jury found that smoking was the sole cause. Hannah Meisel, “7th Circuit Affirms Exxon’s Trial Win In Asbestos Cancer Suit,” Law360 (Sept. 1, 2017).

Krik’s asbestos exposure was not particularly impressive, and he apparently did not have asbestosis. He claimed asbestos exposure from his four years of work aboard naval vessels, occasionally removing insulation materials, and his two weeks as an independent contractor at an Exxon Mobil refinery, where he replaced heaters supposedly insulated with asbestos. Exxon Mobil disputed whether the heaters even had asbestos in them. The naval vessels would have had asbestos insulation from many manufacturers, but Krik focused on Owens-Illinois because it is the only solvent company remaining in the plaintiffs’ asbestos-powered perpetual litigation machine.

Lung cancer in a man with minor asbestos exposure with very substantial tobacco consumption – who are you going to call? See Arthur Frank Report, 2011 WL 12192776 (2011).

Arthur Frank is a physician who counts himself among the intellectual progeny of the late Irving Selikoff. Like Selikoff, Frank is intensely interested in outcomes that help workers show that their work has caused them illness. In furthering his interests, Frank sometimes makes things up, such as the “each and every exposure” theory. Frank is also a proponent of the “big-tent” theory of causation, which attempts to keep every possible defendant in a lawsuit, bu asserting that every asbestos exposure, regardless of its intensity, duration, quantity, variety of asbestos, or fiber length, constitutes a cause of plaintiff’s lung cancer.

Defendants moved to bar Frank’s opinions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. See Exxon Mobil’s motion, at 2013 WL 10847058. Judge Lee of the Northern District of Illinois found that Arthur Frank’s opinions, in the form of the “each and every exposure theory,” “any exposure theory,” “single fiber theory,” or “no safe level of exposure theory” was scientifically insubstantial and inadmissible under Rule 702. Krik at 2-3. Judge Lee thus ruled that Krik could not offer expert witness opinions that espoused “every exposure” is substantial.

After Judge Lees’ ruling, Krik’s case was transferred to Judge Manish Shah, for trial. Despite the earlier ruling by Judge Lee, Krik’s counsel called Dr. Frank to testify at trial, with a repackaged opinion about Krik’s “cumulative exposure” caused his lung cancer, and every constituent exposure to that cumulative exposure was causally responsible.

After a voir dire examination of Frank, Judge Shah concluded that Frank’s opinion was still untethered to any “specific quantum of exposure attributable to the defendants, but was instead based on his medical and scientific opinion that every exposure is a substantial contributing factor to the cumulative exposure that causes cancer.” Krik v. Owens‐Illinois, Inc., No. 10‐CV‐07435, 2015 WL 5050143, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2015). Frank and plaintiffs’ counsel had attempted to circumvent the earlier ruling by Judge Lee, but their ruse failed to fool Judge Shah. On appeal to the Seventh Circuit¹, a panel affirmed Judge Shah’s reasoning and exclusion of Arthur Frank’s opinions. Krik at 4-5.

Arthur Frank is used to making things up, including the law. The law of causation in most jurisdictions distinguishes between substantial and insubstantial contribution, but Frank decreed: “Either it’s zero or it’s substantial; there is no such thing as not substantial.” R. 66‐3 at 23, pageID 923. Really? In Frank’s mind, even a minute, perhaps a second, of fleeting exposure, would be a substantial contributing factor to a plaintiff’s lung cancer because he has legislated insubstantial out of existence. R. 376 at 273–74, pageID 10146‐47.

Frank’s testimony presented several problems:

First, his cumulative exposure theory was no different from the previously excluded “each and every exposure” theory. Even Frank, in his deposition testimony conflated “each and every exposure” with a cumulative exposure theory.

Second, Frank’s opinion did not conform to the legal standard. In the initial ruling on Frank, Judge Lee held that plaintiff must show that asbestos was a “substantial contributing factor” to his injury².

Third, Frank’s opinion lacked an adequate scientific foundation. Krik was tasked with showing that asbestos was a “substantial contributing factor” to his lung cancer. Krik at 7; Krik, 76 F. Supp. 3d at 747 (Lee, J.). Frank’s opinion on “every exposure” did not help him make out his case.

The trial court judges recognized, putting aside the issue of thresholds, that asbestos‐induced lung cancers are dose dependent. At the very least, any attempt to attribute a person’s lung cancer to an exposure requires a consideration of the timing and quantum of exposure. Frank, in defiance of basic common sense and basic toxicologic principles, would – if allowed by courts – treat every exposure, regardless how de minimis, as a substantial contribution to the total exposure and the total risk. Krik at 8; Krik, 76 F. Supp. 3d at 753 (Lee, J.).

The panel of the Seventh Circuit found the trial judges’ exclusion of the Frank nonsense to be well supported and well within their discretion as gatekeepers³. Krik at 14

Krik’s counsel also complained that the trial court refused to admit the so-called Helsinki document⁴, a 1997 statement of public policy statement of scientists who opined that “[c]umulative exposure on a probability basis should thus be considered the main criteria for the attribution of a substantial contribution by asbestos to lung cancer risk.” R. 412‐4 at 4, pageID 13657.

The problem for counsel, and for Frank, was that Frank never referred to or embraced the Helsinki statement as an “authoritative text.” If he had, he would have been roundly impeached by the statement’s pronouncement that the “likelihood that asbestos exposure has made a substantial contribution increases when the exposure increases.” Id. The Seventh Circuit held that the exclusion of this document as a stand-alone piece of evidence did not support plaintiff’s theory, and that its exclusion was not an abuse of discretion⁵. Krik at 15-17.

1 The appellate court noted that it reviewed de novo the question whether the trial court properly applied Rule 702. The district court’s decision to exclude or admit expert witness opinion testimony is reviewed only for “abuse of discretion.” Krik at 4 (citing C.W. ex rel. Wood v. Textron, Inc., 807 F.3d 827, 835 (7th Cir. 2015). The party proponent has the burden of showing that the challenged expert witness testimony satisfies the Rule 702 statutory requirements, by a preponderance of evidence. Id. (citing Lewis v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 561 F.3d 698, 705 (7th Cir. 2009).

2 Krik v. Crane Co., 76 F. Supp. 3d 747, 753 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (citing Lindstrom v. A‐C Prod. Liab., 424 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2005) (applying maritime law); Thacker v. UNR Indus., Inc., 603 N.E.2d 449, 457 (Ill. 1992) (Illinois law).

3 The panel noted that the Sixth and Ninth Circuits had ruled similarly. McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 817 F.3d 1170, 1177 (9th Cir. 2016); Lindstrom v. A‐C Prod. Liab., 424 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2005) (“The requirement, however, is that the plaintiff make a showing with respect to each defendant that the defendant’s product was a substantial factor in plaintiff’s injury … . A holding to the contrary would permit imposition of liability on the manufacturer of any product with which a worker had the briefest of encounters on a single occasion.”).

4 See also Panu Oksa, et al., eds., “Asbestos, Asbestosis, and Cancer, Helsinki Criteria for Diagnosis and Attribution,” (2014).

5 Accord Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp., No. CV RDB‐16‐1169, 2017 WL 3022969, at *5 (D. Md. July 17, 2017); Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., No. CV 15‐6394, 2016 WL 5847124, at *3, n.3 (E.D. La. Oct. 6, 2016), recon. denied, No. CV 15‐6394, 2017 WL 876983 (E.D. La. Mar. 6, 2017); Watkins v. Affinia Group, 2016‐Ohio‐2830, ¶ 37, 54 N.E.3d 174, 182; In reJames Wilson Assoc., 965 F.2d 160, 173 (7th Cir.1992); United States v. Dixon, 413 F.3d 520, 524–25 (5th Cir. 2005); Yates v. Ford Motor Co., 113 F. Supp. 3d 841, 862 (E.D.N.C. 2015); Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 44 A.3d 27, 47, 55 n.35 (Pa. 2012); Bostic v. Georgia‐Pacific Corp., 439 S.W.3d 332, 356–57 (Tex. 2014).

Posted in Asbestos, Causation, Rule 702 | Comments Off on Seventh Circuit Franks ‘Every Exposure’ Theory for Extinction

Samuel Tarry’s Protreptic for Litigation-Sponsored Publications

July 9th, 2017

Litigation-related research has been the punching bag of self-appointed public health advocates for some time. Remarkably, and perhaps not surprising to readers of this blog, many of the most strident critics have deep ties to the lawsuit industry, and have served the plaintiffs’ bar loyally and zealously for many years.¹^,²^,³^,⁴ And many of these critics have ignored or feigned ignorance of the litigation provenance of much research that they hold dear, such as Irving Selikoff’s asbestos research undertaken for the asbestos workers’ union and its legal advocates. These critics’ campaign is an exquisite study in hypocrisy.

For some time, I have argued that the standards for conflict-of-interest disclosures should be applied symmetrically and comprehensively to include positional conflicts, public health and environmental advocacy, as well as litigation consulting or testifying for any party. Conflicts should be disclosed, but they should not become a facile excuse or false justification for dismissing research, regardless of the party that sponsored it.⁵ Scientific studies should be interpreted scientifically – that is carefully, thoroughly, and rigorously – regardless whether they are conducted and published by industry-sponsored, union-sponsored, or Lord help us, even lawyer-sponsored scientists.

Several years ago, a defense lawyer, Samuel Tarry, published a case series of industry-sponsored research or analysis, which grew out of litigation, but made substantial contributions to the scientific understanding of claimed health risks. See Samuel L. Tarry, Jr., “Can Litigation-Generated Science Promote Public Health?” 33 Am. J. Trial Advocacy 315 (2009). Tarry’s paper is a helpful corrective to the biased (and often conflicted) criticisms of industry-sponsored research and analysis by the lawsuit industry and its scientific allies and consultants. It an ocean of uninformative papers about “Daubert,” Tarry’s paper stands out and should be required reading for all lawyers who practice in the area of “health effects litigation.”

Tarry presented a brief summary of the litigation context for three publications that deserve to remembered and used as exemplars of important, sound, scientific publications that helped changed the course of litigations, as well as the scientific community’s appreciation of prior misleading contentions and publications. His three case studies grew out of the silicone-gel breast implant litigation, the latex allergy litigation, and the never-ending asbestos litigation.

1. Silicone

There are some glib characterizations of the silicone gel breast implant litigation as having had no evidentiary basis. A more careful assessment would allow that there was some evidence, much of it fraudulent and irrelevant. See, e.g., Hon. Jack B. Weinstein, “Preliminary Reflections on Administration of Complex Litigation” 2009 Cardozo L. Rev. de novo 1, 14 (2009) (describing plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in the silicone gel breast implant litigation as “charlatans” and the litigation as largely based upon fraud). The lawsuit industry worked primarily through so-called support groups, which in turn funded friendly, advocate physicians, who in turn testified for plaintiffs and their lawyers in personal injury cases.

When the defendants, such as Dow Corning, reacted by sponsoring serious epidemiologic analyses of the issue whether exposure to silicone gel was associated with specific autoimmune or connective tissue diseases, the plaintiffs’ bar mounted a conflict-of-interest witch hunt over industry funding.⁶ Ultimately, the source of funding became obviously irrelevant; the concordance between industry-funded and all high quality research on the litigation claims was undeniable. Obvious that is to court-appointed expert witnesses⁷, and to a blue-ribbon panel of experts in the Institute of Medicine⁸.

2. Latex Hypersensitivity

Tarry’s second example comes from the latex hypersensitivity litigation. Whatever evidentiary basis may have existed for isolated cases of latex allergy, the plaintiffs’ bar had taken and expanded into a full-scale mass tort. A defense expert witness, Dr. David Garabrant, a physician and an epidemiologist, published a meta-analysis and systematic review of the extant scientific evidence. David H. Garabrant & Sarah Schweitzer, “Epidemiology of latex sensitization and allergies in health care workers,” 110 J. Allergy & Clin. Immunol. S82 (2002). Garabrant’s formal, systematic review documented his litigation opinions that the risk of latex hypersensitivity was much lower than claimed and not the widespread hazard asserted by plaintiffs and their retained expert witnesses. Although Garabrant’s review did not totally end the litigation and public health debate about latex, it went a long way toward ending both.

3. Fraudulent Asbestos-Induced Radiography

I still recall, sitting at my desk, my secretary coming into my office to tell me excitedly that a recent crop of silicosis claimants had had previous asbestosis claims. When I asked how she knew, she showed me the computer print out for closed files for another client. Some of the names were so distinctive that the probability that there were two men with the same name was minuscule. When we obtained the closed files from storage, sure enough, the social security numbers matched, as did all other pertinent data, except that what had been called asbestosis previously was now called silicosis.

My secretary’s astute observation was mirrored in the judicial proceedings of Judge Janis Graham Jack, who presided over MDL 1553. Judge Jack, however, discovered something even more egregious: in some cases, a single physician interpreted a single chest radiograph as showing either asbestosis or silicosis, but not both. The two, alternative diagnoses were recorded in two, separate reports, for two different litigation cases against different defendants. This fraudulent practice, as well as others, are documented in Judge Jack’s extraordinary, thorough opinion. See In re Silica Prods. Liab. Litig., 398 F. Supp. 2d 563 (S.D. Tex. 2005)⁹.

The revelations of fraud in Judge Jack’s opinion were not entirely surprising. As everyone involved in asbestos litigation has always known, there is a disturbing degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of chest radiographs for pneumoconiosis. The federal government has long been aware of this problem, and through the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, has tried to subdue extreme subjectivity by creating a pneumoconiosis classification schemed for chest radiographs known as the “B-reader” system. Unfortunately, B-reader certification meant only that physicians could achieve inter-observer and intra-observer reproducibility of interpretations on the examination, but they were free to peddle extreme interpretations for litigation. Indeed, the B-reader certification system exacerbated the problem by creating a credential that was marketed to advance the credibility of some of the most biased, over-reading physicians in asbestos, silica, and coal pneumoconiosis litigation.

Tarry’s third example is a study conducted under the leadership of the late Joseph Gitlin, at Johns Hopkins Medical School. With funding from defendants and insurers, Dr. Joseph Gitlin conducted a concordance study of films that had been read by predatory radiologists and physicians as showing pneumoconiosis. The readers in his study found a very low level of positive films (less than 5%), despite their having been interpreted as showing pneumoconiosis by the litigation physicians. See Joseph N. Gitlin, Leroy L. Cook, Otha W. Linton, and Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, “Comparison of ‘B’ Readers’ Interpretations of Chest Radiographs for Asbestos Related Changes,” 11 Acad. Radiol. 843 (2004); Marjorie Centofanti, “With thousands of asbestos workers demanding compensation for lung disease, a radiology researcher here finds that most cases lack merit,” Hopkins Medicine (2006). As with the Sokol hoax, the practitioners of post-modern medicine cried “foul,” and decried industry sponsorship, but the disparity between courtroom and hospital medicine was sufficient proof for most disinterested observers that there was a need to fix the litigation process.

Meretricious Mensuration¹⁰ – Manganese Litigation Example

Tarry’s examples are important reminders that corporate sponsorship, whether from the plaintiffs’ lawsuit industry or from manufacturing industry, does not necessarily render research tainted or unreliable. Although lawyers often confront exaggerated or false claims, and witness important, helpful correctives in the form of litigation-sponsored studies, the demands of legal practice and “the next case” typically prevent lawyers from documenting the scientific depredations and their rebuttals. Sadly, unlike litigations such as those involving Bendectin and silicone, the chronicles of fraud and exaggeration are mostly closed books in closed files in closed offices. These examples need the light of day and a fresh breeze to disseminate them widely in both the scientific and legal communities, so that all may have a healthy appreciation for the value of appropriately conducted studies generated in litigation contexts.

As I have intimated elsewhere, the welding fume litigation is a great example of specious claiming, which ultimately was unhorsed by publications inspired or funded by the defense. In the typical welding fume case, plaintiff claimed that exposure to manganese in welding fume caused Parkinson’s disease or manganism. Although manganism sounds as though it must be a disease that can be caused only by manganese, in the hands of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, manganism became whatever ailment plaintiffs claimed to have suffered. Circularity and perfect definitional precision were achieved by semantic fiat.

The Sanchez-Ramos Meta-Analysis

Manganese Madness was largely the creation of the Litigation Industry, under the dubious leadership of Dickie Scruggs & Company. Although the plaintiffs enjoyed a strong tail wind in the courtroom of an empathetic judge, they had difficulties in persuading juries and ultimately decamped from MDL 1535, in favor of more lucrative targets. In their last hurrah, however, plaintiffs retained a neurologist, Juan Sanchez-Ramos, who proffered a biased, invalid synthesis, which he billed as a meta-analysis¹¹.

Sanchez-Ramos’s meta-analysis, such as it was, provoked professional disapproval and criticism from the defense expert witness, Dr. James Mortimer. Because the work product of Sanchez-Ramos was first disclosed in deposition, and not in his Rule 26 report, Dr. Mortimer undertook belatedly a proper meta-analysis.¹² Even though Dr. Mortimer’s meta-analysis was done in response to the Sanchez-Ramos’s improper, tardy disclosure, the MDL judge ruled that Mortimer’s meta-analysis was too late. The effect, however, of Mortimer’s meta-analysis was clear in showing that welding had no positive association with Parkinson’s disease outcomes. The MDL 1535 resolved quickly thereafter, and with only slight encouragement, Dr. Mortimer published a further refined meta-analysis with two other leading neuro-epidemiologists. See James Mortimer, Amy Borenstein, and Lorene Nelson, “Associations of welding and manganese exposure with Parkinson disease: Review and meta-analysis,” 79 Neurology 1174 (2012). See also “Manganese Meta-Analysis Further Undermines Reference Manual’s Toxicology Chapter” (Oct. 15, 2012).

1 See, e.g., David Michaels & Celeste Monforton, “Manufacturing Uncertainty Contested Science and the Protection ofthe Public’s Health and Environment,” 95 Am. J. Pub. Health S39, S40 (2005); David Michaels & Celeste Monforton, “How Litigation Shapes the Scientific Literature: Asbestos and Disease Among Automobile Mechanics,” 15 J. L. & Policy 1137, 1165 (2007). Michaels had served as a plaintiffs’ paid expert witness in chemical exposure litigation, and Monforton had been employed by labor unions before these papers were published, without disclosure of conflicts.

2 Leslie Boden & David Ozonoff, “Litigation-Generated Science: Why Should We Care?” 116 Envt’l Health Persp. 121, 121 (2008) (arguing that systematic distortion of the scientific record will result from litigation-sponsored papers even with disclosure of conflicts of interest). Ozonoff had served as a hired plaintiffs’ expert witnesses on multiple occasion before the publication of this article, which was unadorned by disclosure.

3 Lennart Hardell, Martin J. Walker, Bo Walhjalt, Lee S. Friedman, and Elihu D. Richter, “Secret Ties to Industry and Conflicting Interest in Cancer Research,” 50 Am. J. Indus. Med. 227, 233 (2007) (criticizing “powerful industrial interests” for “undermining independent research on hazard and risk,” in a “red” journal that is controlled by allies of the lawsuit industry). Hardell was an expert witness for plaintiffs in mobile phone litigation in which plaintiffs claimed that non-ionizing radiation caused brain cancer. In federal litigation, Hardell was excluded as an expert witness when his proffered opinions were found to be scientifically unreliable. Newman v. Motorola, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d. 769, 777 (D. Md. 2002), aff’d, 78 Fed. Appx. 292 (4th Cir. 2003).

4 See David Egilman & Susanna Bohme, “IJOEH and the Critique of Bias,” 14 Internat’l J. Occup. & Envt’l Health 147, 148 (2008) (urging a Marxist critique that industry-sponsored research is necessarily motivated by profit considerations, and biased in favor of industry funders). Although Egilman usually gives a disclosure of his litigation activities, he typically characterizes those activities as having been for both plaintiffs and defendants, even though his testimonial work for defendants is minuscule.

5 Kenneth J. Rothman, “Conflict of Interest: The New McCarthyism in Science,” 269 J. Am. Med. Ass’n 2782 (1993).

6 See Charles H. Hennekens, I-Min Lee, Nancy R. Cook, Patricia R. Hebert, Elizabeth W. Karlson, Fran LaMotte; JoAnn E. Manson, and Julie E. Buring, “Self-reported Breast Implants and Connective- Tissue Diseases in Female Health Professionals: A Retrospective Cohort Study, 275 J. Am. Med. Ass’n 616-19 (1998) (analyzing established cohort for claimed associations, with funding from the National Institutes of Health and Dow Corning Corporation).

7 See Barbara Hulka, Betty Diamond, Nancy Kerkvliet & Peter Tugwell, “Silicone Breast Implants in Relation to Connective Tissue Diseases and Immunologic Dysfunction: A Report by a National Science Panel to the Hon. Sam Pointer Jr., MDL 926 (Nov. 30, 1998).” The court-appointed expert witnesses dedicated a great deal of their professional time to their task of evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims and the evidence. At the end of the process, they all published their litigation work in leading journals. See Barbara Hulka, Nancy Kerkvliet & Peter Tugwell, “Experience of a Scientific Panel Formed to Advise the Federal Judiciary on Silicone Breast Implants,” 342 New Engl. J. Med. 812 (2000); Esther C. Janowsky, Lawrence L. Kupper., and Barbara S. Hulka, “Meta-Analyses of the Relation between Silicone Breast Implants and the Risk of Connective-Tissue Diseases,” 342 New Engl. J. Med. 781 (2000); Peter Tugwell, George Wells, Joan Peterson, Vivian Welch, Jacqueline Page, Carolyn Davison, Jessie McGowan, David Ramroth, and Beverley Shea, “Do Silicone Breast Implants Cause Rheumatologic Disorders? A Systematic Review for a Court-Appointed National Science Panel,” 44 Arthritis & Rheumatism 2477 (2001).

8 Stuart Bondurant, Virginia Ernster, and Roger Herdman, eds., Safety of Silicone Breast Implants (Institute of Medicine) (Wash. D.C. 1999).

9 See also Lester Brickman, “On the Applicability of the Silica MDL Proceeding to Asbestos Litigation, 12 Conn. Insur. L. J. 289 (2006); Lester Brickman, “Disparities Between Asbestosis and Silicosis Claims Generated By Litigation Screenings and Clinical Studies,” 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 513 (2007).

10 This apt phraseology is due to the late Keith Morgan, whose wit, wisdom, and scientific acumen are greatly missed. See W. Keith C. Morgan, “Meretricious Mensuration,” 6 J. Eval. Clin. Practice 1 (2000).

11 See Deposition of Dr. Juan Sanchez-Ramos, in Street v. Lincoln Elec. Co., Case No. 1:06-cv-17026, 2011 WL 6008514 (N.D. Ohio May 17, 2011).

12 See Deposition of Dr. James Mortimer, in Street v. Lincoln Elec. Co., Case No. 1:06-cv-17026, 2011 WL 6008054 (N.D. Ohio June 29, 2011).

Posted in Asbestos, Causation, Conflicts of Interest, Meta-analysis, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence, Scientific Misconduct | Comments Off on Samuel Tarry’s Protreptic for Litigation-Sponsored Publications

The Slemp Case, Part 2 – Openings

June 10th, 2017

“The Slemp Case, Part I – Jury Verdict for Plaintiff – 10 Initial Observations” (May 13, 2017)

The legal community is still trying to grasp the enormity of the $110M verdict against Johnson & Johnson, in the Slemp case. J & J says it will appeal, but resolution of legal issues will not necessarily clarify what happened factually in the Slemp case. Some legal commentators have attempted superficial analyses that try to correlate case outcomes with how cases are selected for trial in Missouri. In the five talc trials to date, plaintiffs have prevailed (with fulsome verdicts) in both cases in which plaintiffs’ counsel selected the case for trial. See Amy Rubenstein and Malerie Ma Roddy, “Talc Talk: 1 Of These Verdicts Is Not Like The Others,” Law360 (June 1, 2017). In the three other cases, selected by defense counsel, the defense has lost two of the three cases, again with outlandish verdicts. No statistical analysis of these correlations will suggest that the selection process is correlated with verdict outcome. If there is no general causation, then selection of plaintiff for trial should not correlate with outcome. More important, the Missouri verdicts cannot be reconciled with the ruling by Judge Johnson in the New Jersey talc cases. Carl v. Johnson & Johnson, No. ATL-L-6546-14, 2016 WL 4580145 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div., Atl. Cty., Sept. 2, 2016); see also “New Jersey Kemps Ovarian Cancer – Talc Cases” (Sept. 16, 2016).

A manufacturer is legally held to the standard of having expert knowledge of the hazards of a product, and warning about those hazards that are not common knowledge. The conflicts noted above, and the exculpatory views of various professional groups and federal and international agencies should mean, in a sane system of products liability law, that a manufacturer would have no liability in the ovarian cancer – talc cases. A recent review concluded:

“While mechanistic, pathology, and animal studies do not support evidence for the carcinogenicity of talc on the ovarian epithelium 329, epidemiological studies have indicated an association with talc use and increased OC [ovarian cancer] risk.”

Brett M. Reid, Jennifer B. Permuth, Thomas A. Sellers, “Epidemiology of ovarian cancer: a review,” Cancer Biol. Med. 14 (2017). The authors went on, however, to note that the association was not consistently found among studies, and that the IARC had rejected the causal contention as having been shown. How on this evidence, can a manufacturer be held liable for not warning of a causal connection? And how could a manufacturer be found to have acted maliciously or outrageously, with substantial scientific support?

What is needed is careful, detailed evaluation of the actual evidence at trial. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the FDA, the NTP, and virtually every other agency and professional group that has addressed the question whether talc causes ovarian cancer, have declared that there is no causal connection established. Have the plantiffs in these cases hit a treasure trove of data not seen by the scientific and regulatory community? Or have plaintiffs exploited the weaknesses of the jury system, and advanced arguments and evidence that would never move a panel of disinterested scientists?

Meaningful analyses of the talc trials are not likely to happen from hipshot commentary. Fortunately, Courtroom View Network videotaped the Slemp trial from openings to return of verdict, which has created a rich resource for lawyers, legal analysts, political scientists, scientists, and regulators to judge the efficacy and content of courtroom presentations of complex scientific evidence.

Less is More, Except When Less is Just Less

There are two common, glib pronouncements you can often hear uttered in defense counsel confabulations. The first is “Less is More.” The second is “Let’s not get into weeds.” These generalizations cannot be tested with jury research in which both sides’ presentations are often no longer than 60 minutes, or so. Actual research of trial research rarely can move beyond anecdotal observations.

In Slemp, the defense case went took up two days. The plaintiffs’ case took 12 days. The plaintiff presented multiple medical expert witnesses, including two epidemiologists who have been involved in studying talc and ovarian cancer, and publishing on the issue, for decades. The defense presented just one expert witness, Dr. Warner Huh, a gynecologic oncologist. Dr. Huh claimed to have epidemiologic expertise by virtue of his work on studies on cervical cancer screening. Dr. Huh, as we will see, never explained how, when, and where he received training in epidemiologic study design and biostatistics. This defense strategy on expert witnesses requires careful analysis. Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ counsel presented a minimally qualified regulatory expert witness to serve primarily as a document reader. The defense effectively cross-examined this witness by showing his ignorance and selectivity in document reading and presentation. J & J, however, never called a fact witness, or corporate witness, to give viva voce testimony, that rebutted the innuendo, defamations, and characterizations of the company by plaintiffs’ counsel.

The Opening “Statements”

Perhaps it is best to begin at the beginning. Voir dire is not available at Courtroom View Network, but the opening statements are on line. There is a widespread myth that Hans Zeisel’s research established that most cases are won in the openings. Zeisel debunked that reading of his work, without disagreeing that the first impressions of opening statement can be powerful. See Hans Zeisel, “A Jury Hoax: The Superpower of the Opening Statement,” 14 Litigation 17 (Summer 1988). Inquiring minds might want to know how the openings statements went for the parties involved in Slemp.

Counsel for the plaintiff and for the two defendants (J & J, Imerys) all gave strong arguments that went well beyond stating what the evidence will show. All counsel worked hard to establish ethos and pathos, but plaintiff’s counsel excelled at creating the appearance of scientific logos, even when there was none. Defense counsel, on the other hand, tried to avoid talking about epidemiology for the most part. When the defense did discuss epidemiology, they made some disturbing, unnecessary mistakes.

Plaintiffs’ Opening

The plaintiff’s opening was noteworthy for its fear mongering. There are some authors who seem to want to take credit for a so-called reptile strategy, but fear mongering has been part of the dark side of rhetoric since at least the dawn of recorded history.¹ Edmund Burke captured the sum and substance of the reptile strategy, which was so much on display in 18^th century politics:

“No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.”

Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Inquiry into The Origin of Our Ideas of The Sublime And Beautiful – With Several Other Additions at Sect. II. Terror (1757). Plaintiff’s counsel argued that all women, everywhere [including the women jurors and the male jurors’ female kin] are threatened by the evil corporate behemoth that sells baby powder. Women, everywhere, are developing ovarian cancer by the millions because they have used talcum powder. Only this jury can stop the carnage because regulators have ignored the situation. Regulators and the scientific establishment are venal, and J & J has bought them off. Steve Bannon would be proud.

The plaintiff’s counsel argued that J & J’s talcum powder contains not one, not two, but three carcinogens: talc, asbestos, and heavy metals. Talc, of course, is the focus of the claim and the trial, but what about the other two? Plaintiffs’ counsel did not advert to any evidence or opinion that heavy metals cause ovarian cancer; nor did he even slow down to say what heavy metals he was claiming were present. The evidence that asbestos causes ovarian cancer is perhaps marginally credible, but the causal conclusion is still doubtful. The studies that suggest an association are generally poorly done and heavily confounded. The real issue, however, with the asbestos claim, other than its effectiveness in instilling fear and knee-jerk reactions among lay jurors, is that it obscures an important issue whether the tremolite that sometimes accompanies talc in serpentine rock deposits is actually tremolite asbestos. Tremolite, as a mineral, has numerous crystallogaphic “habits,” including acicular fibers, angular particles, plates, etc.² Some time ago, the federal government adopted a convention of counting anything as a “fiber,” if it were greater than 5 μm in length, and it had an aspect ratio of at least three to one. Another agency, the U.S. EPA adopted a minimal 5:1 aspect ratio, but both federal regulatory definitions disregard both mineralogical and biological considerations for what is a “fiber” with biological effects. Pace Melanie³, a thing is not a phallic system if it is just longer than it is wide, and a tremolite cleavage fragment is not a fiber, even if it is three times longer than wide.

There were other notable rhetorical moves in Plaintiff’s opening statement. In most other litigations, Plaintiffs run away from the need to rule out random error in studies that their expert witnesses proffer as support for causal claims. See, e.g., In re Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrochloride) Products Liability Litigation, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, No. 16-2247 (June 2, 2017). In doing so, Plaintiffs often distort the consensus views about statistical significance, from the American Statistical Association⁴ and other groups. In the Slemp case, however, Plaintiff’s counsel swung to an opposite extreme by over-endorsing statistical significance as the apparent end-all and be-all for assessing causality. Study validity, whether internal or external, received no serious mention; bias in the studies relied upon was not discussed in any meaningful way.

To highlight the disingenuousness of the Plaintiffs’ opening with respect to failing to consider study validity and bias, and its over-endorsement of statistical significance, the Plaintiff later in the trial flashed sound bites from a report, commissioned by J & J, on the claimed causal connection. The report was by done other than Professor Kenneth Rothman, along with others. Professor Rothman has been in the forefront of criticizing the use of statistical significance testing as a bright-line criterion for causation. Rothman, along with Jonathan Samet (hardly a defense friendly epidemiologist) and Harris Pastides, reported, in 2000, that there was a “statistically significant” association, but demurred on causation because of the problem of study bias and validity:

“A weighted average of the results from epidemiologic studies to date measuring the relation between talc and ovarian cancer risk gives an overall relative risk of 1.31, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.21-1.41. Bias and causation are competing explanations for the weak positive association observed. This weak association could be an underestimate of a stronger association if there are errors in measuring talc exposure that apply uniformly to all study subjects (non-differential misclassification). On the other hand, non-differential misclassification does not bias an association that is null to begin with, so postulating non-differential misclassification cannot shed light on whether the association results from a causal relation or not. Most of the published studies are interview-based case-control studies, subject to recall bias, which can readily give rise to associations of this magnitude. The evidence from these studies regarding recall bias is mixed. Uncontrolled confounding can also easily explain associations this weak; although no single confounding factor would seem to account for the overall effect, the combined effect of several such unidentified confounders could do so. In considering these competing explanations of bias and causation, the evidence in favor of a causal explanation is only the overall weak association of a relative risk of 1.31. The lack of a plausible biologic mechanism, on the other hand, weighs against a causal interpretation. Also weighing against a causal explanation is the dose-response pattern among talc users, which is an inverse trend for both duration of use and frequency of use. A causal relation would predict a positive trend, not an inverse trend. Based on these considerations, we suggest that the evidence to date does not indicate that talc can be ‘reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen’.”

Kenneth J. Rothman Harris Pastides Jonathan Samet, “Interpretation of Epidemiologic Studies on Talc and Ovarian Cancer,” (Nov. 28, 2000).

From a rhetorical perspective, one of the more interesting moves in Plaintiff’s opening was a pivot from causation to association. Without ever really discussing the standards or factors for inferring causation, Plaintiff’s counsel invoked regulatory standards and avoided addressing himself to the Missouri standard of causation. The standards for whether to warn and for determining cause in fact were conflated and confused, in what seemed liked a deliberate effort.

Defense Openings

J & J’s Opening

The defense strategies were apparent enough. The defense emphasized that Ms. Slemp had a serous borderline tumor (SBT). The emphasis appeared to be a plea of confession and avoidance. In other words, maybe there is something going on with talc and ovarian cancer, but this is an SBT, and it is different, so you do not need to worry too much about the more general claim that talc causes ovarian cancer. SBTs are a subset of epithelial ovarian tumors, often characterized as semi-malignant, with a more favorable outcome than other ovarian epithelial tumors. The defense also strived to shift the spotlight to Ms. Slemp and her strikingly poor health, preëxisting her cancer diagnosis, as well as her massive obesity and her heavy smoking, both risk factors for ovarian cancer.

On the positive side, J & J’s counsel anticipated and warned the jury that plaintiffs’ expert witnesses would be seriously challenged on their post-hoc analyses and their failing to share their causal conclusions with the scientific community. J & J’s counsel did engage on the general causation claim, but mostly to argue that most governmental agencies and professional organizations have refused to accept the causal claim. To the limited extent that J & J got into the “weeds,” it identified the Bradford Hill factors as the generally accepted decision procedure for reaching causal conclusions. So far, so good (except for the insistence upon referring to Sir Austin as Sir Bradford, as though Bradford was the man’s first name). What defense counsel did not say, astonishingly, is that Sir Austin’s nine factors require a necessary predicate that is satisfied when:

“Our observations reveal an association between two variables, perfectly clear-cut and beyond what we would care to attribute to the play of chance.”

Austin Bradford Hill, “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?” 58 Proc. Royal Soc’y Med. 295, 295 (1965). See “Woodside & Davis on the Bradford Hill Considerations” (Aug. 23, 2013). To be sure, there are any number of studies on talc and ovarian cancer that satisfy Hill’s requirement of an association not attributable to the play of chance, but what is lacking is the clear-cut association; that is, the associations that are “statistically significant” have not ruled out bias and confounding. The defense opening did introduce the concept of recall bias, which plays an important part in undermining the validity of the available case-control studies. What the defense did not say, however, is that misclassification biases in cohort studies do not always bias towards the null, and even if they did, then the latest cohort study (with a hazard ratio below 1.0) would have had a risk ratio even lower than 1.0 than what was reported.

The defense did emphasize the absence of the Bradford Hill factors for plausibility and dose response. A more sophisticated analysis would have acknowledged what Sir Austin had over 60 years ago: plausibility or explanation is not necessary to infer causation. Not all the Bradford Hill factors are equal, and the defense diluted the analysis by falsely elevating one factor, plausibility, to the status of a necessary criterion.

The defense opening also had some dubious moves. It deprecated case-control studies as inferior to cohort studies, both as a general proposition and specifically with respect to talc. Case-control studies are generally harder to do, as the Plaintiffs’ bar learned when it based an entire mass tort litigation on a single case-control study, the so-called Yale Hemorrhagic Stroke Project.⁵ The Plaintiffs won the Daubert war⁶ in that litigation, but lost their jury trials because juries ultimately saw the methodological flaws that the MDL court disregarded. The general proposition that cohort studies are always superior to case-control studies, however, is doubtful. The defense did not need to stake out this claim, especially since it was not going to call an epidemiologist to testify.

Some of the claims that the defense committed to in its opening were as stunning as they were dubious. J & J’s counsel promised that he would show that talc has been proven safe. That claim is, however, beyond what the available science can show, especially with a plethora of statistically significant associations in case-control studies. J & J need only show that the plaintiffs’ claim has not been established, but it created an unnecessary burden of proving safety. The rhetorical value of the claim is obvious, but promising to show something that cannot be delivered seems like a recipe for disaster. $110 million is a disaster.

Then there was a defense claim that epidemiology cannot show that talc causes ovarian cancer. The claim was unclear as to whether epidemiology cannot establish general or specific causation, and vague as to whether the inability resulted from the weak, equivocal evidence in the instance of talc and ovarian cancer, or some deeper inability that stems from the nature of the evidence itself. Of course, given that there is an expected base rate of ovarian cancer in the general population, epidemiology will be required, even if it may not be sufficient. But if epidemiology alone is not sufficient, then what else is required? The defense never clarified its claim.

As for specific causation, the notion that epidemiology never informs individual patient predictions or causal assessments seems far fetched. If are dealing with a case of mesothelioma and occupational crocidolite exposure, with relative risks in the thousands, the attribution based upon the existence of a very high relative risk seems eminently reasonable. The same with maternal thalidomide use and an infant’s phocomelia, even though there is a baseline risk of phocomelia. Even in the case of a heavy smoker and lung cancer, with relative risks in the range of 20 to 40, inferring specific causation seems like a sound inference, especially in the absence of evidence that the risk is segregated in some subgroup of the population that suffers the outcome.

Imerys’s Opening

Counsel for Imerys also gave an opening statement, which started on common defense themes of the need to reserve judgment until all evidence is heard, and the need to consider context for statements. Imerys echoed the dubious claims that epidemiology can never inform inferences about individual patients, that epidemiology has determined that talc is safe, that cohort studies are always better than case-control studies, and that cohort studies are better because they have many thousand of women in them as opposed to “just a handful” in case-control studies.

Imerys, however, soon wandered into territory that affirmatively undermined J & J’s defense. First, it applauded itself for having warned of “possible causation,” which tended to concede the point to plaintiffs that there is a duty to warn of possibly caused outcomes. Second, Imerys appropriately urged its bulk supplier defense, which placed the spotlight on J & J’s alleged culpability.

The Imerys lawyer may have offended the Missouri jury by referring to talc as a mineral formed millions of years ago. A large percentage of Americans believe that the Earth was created less than 6,000 years ago. And yet, we still believe that allowing ordinary citizens to decide scientific issues is a good thing!

In its opening, Imerys also misstated the law to its own detriment. In discussing its obligations to warn, Imerys asserted that as a mining company it had to follow the rules established by OSHA. Actually, not. Mining companies are under the jurisdiction of the Mining Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and OSHA Hazards Communication regulations did not apply to mining companies for the years involved in the Slemp case. See Memorandum from Patricia K. Clark, Director of OSHA Compliance Programs, to Regional Administrators re Hazard Communication and Mining Operations (Mar. 3, 1992).

1 See also Anthony Pratkanis & Elliot Aronson, Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion at 210 (2000) (“[A]ll other things being equal, the more frightened a person is by a communication, the more likely her or she is to take positive preventive action.”); H.L. Mencken, In Defence of Women § 13 “Women and the Emotions” (1923) (“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”); Conor Boyack, Feardom: How Politicians Exploit Your Emotions and What You Can Do to Stop Them (2014).

2 John W. Anthony, Richard A. Bideaux, Kenneth W. Bladh, and Monte C. Nichols, The Handbook of Mineralogy, vol. II (1995).

3 Melanie Safka, “Psychotherapy” (“A thing is a phallic symbol if it’s longer than it’s wide”).

4 Ronald L. Wasserstein & Nicole A. Lazar, “The ASA’s Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose,” The American Statistician, available online (Mar. 7, 2016), in-press at DOI:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/>.

5 Walter N. Kernan, Catherine M. Viscoli, et al., “Phenylpropanolamine and the Risk of Hemorrhagic Stroke,” 343 New Engl. J. Med. 1826 (2000).

6 See In re Phenylpropanolamine Prod. Liab. Litig., 289 F. 2d 1230 (2003).

Posted in Asbestos, Causation, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on The Slemp Case, Part 2 – Openings

New York Rejects the Asbestos Substantial Factor Ruse (Juni Case)

March 2nd, 2017

I recall encountering Dr. Joseph Sokolowski in one of my first asbestos personal injury cases, 32 years ago. Dr. Sokolowki was a pulmonary specialist in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and he showed up for plaintiffs in cases in south Jersey as well as in Philadelphia. Plaintiffs’ counsel sought him out for his calm and unflappable demeanor, stentorious voice, and propensity for over-interpreting chest radiographs. (Dr. Sokolowski failed the NIOSH B-Reader examination.)

At the end of his direct examination, the plaintiff’s lawyer asked Dr. Sokolowski the derigueur “substantial factor” question, which in 1985 had already become a customary feature of such testimonies. And Dr. Sokolowski delivered his well-rehearsed answer: “Each and every exposure to asbestos was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s disease.”

My cross-examination picked at the cliché. Some asbestos inhaled was then exhaled. Yes. Some asbestos inhaled was brought up and swallowed. Yes. Asbestos that was inhaled and retained near the hilum did not participate in causing disease at the periphery of the lung. Yes. And so on, and so forth. I finished with my rhetorical question, always a dangerous move, “So you have no way to say that each and every exposure to asbestos actually participated in causing the plaintiff’s disease?” Dr. Sokolowski was imperceptibly thrown off his game, but he confessed error by claiming the necessity to cover up the gap in the evidence. “Well, we have no way to distinguish among the exposures so we have to say all were involved.”

Huh? What did he say? Move to strike the witness’s testimony as irrational, and incoherent. How can a litigant affirmatively support a claim by asserting his ignorance of the necessary foundational facts? The trial judge overruled my motion with alacrity, and the parties continued with the passion play called asbestos litigation. The judge was perhaps simply eager to get on with his docket of thousands of asbestos cases, but at least Dr. Sokolowski and I recognized that the “substantial factor” testimony was empty rhetoric, with no scientific or medical basis.

Sadly, the “substantial factor” falsehood was already well ensconced in 1985, in Pennsylvania law, as well as the law of most other states. Now, 32 years later, with ever increasingly more peripheral defendants, each involving less significant, if any, asbestos exposure, the “substantial factor” ruse is beginning to unravel.¹

Juni v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co.

Arthur Juni was a truck and car car mechanic, who worked on the clutches, brakes, and manifold gaskets of Ford trucks. Juni claimed to have sustained asbestos exposure in this work, as well as in other aspects of his work career. In 2012, Juni was diagnosed with mesothelioma; he died in 2014. Juni v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., at *1,No. 190315/12 2458 2457, 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 01523 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t, Feb. 28, 2017).

Juni sued multiple defendants in New York Supreme Court, for New York County. Most of the defendants settled, but Ford Corporation tried the case against the plaintiff’s widow. Both sides called multiple expert witnesses, whose testimony disputed whether the chrysotile asbestos in Ford’s brakes and clutches could cause mesothelioma. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, but the trial court granted judgment nothwithstanding the verdict, on the ground that the evidence failed to support the causation verdict. Id. At *1; see Juni v. A. 0. Smith Water Prod., 48 Misc. 3d 460, 11 N.Y.S.3d 415 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015).

Earlier this week, the first department of the New York Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for Ford. 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 01523. The Appellate Division refused to approve plaintiffs’ theory of cumulative exposure to show causation. The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Drs. Jacqueline Moline and Stephen Markowitz, both asserted that even a single asbestos exposure was a “substantial contributing” cause. The New York appellate court, like the trial court before, saw through the ruse, and declared that both expert witnesses had failed to support their assertions.

The “Asbestos Exception” Rejected

Although New York has never enacted a codified set of evidence rules, and has never expressly adopted the rule of Daubert v. Merrill Richardson, the New York Court of Appeals has held that there are limits to the admissibility of expert witness opinion testimony. Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 7 N.Y.3d 434 (2006), and Cornell v. 360 W. 51st St. Realty, LLC, 22 NY3d 762 (2014); Sean Reeps. v BMW of North Am., LLC, 26 N.Y.3d 801 (2016). In Juni, the Appellate Division, First Department, firmly rejected any suggestion that plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in asbestos cases are privileged against challenge over admissibility or sufficiency because the challenges occur in an asbestos case. The plaintiff’s special pleading that asbestos causation of mesothelioma is too difficult was invalidated by the success of other plaintiffs, in other cases, in showing that a specific occupational exposure was sufficient to cause mesothelioma.

The Appellate Division also rejected the plaintiff’s claim, echoed in the dissenting opinion of one lone judge, that there exists a “consensus from the medical and scientific communities that even low doses of asbestos exposure, above that in the ambient environment, are sufficient to cause mesothelioma.” The Court held that this supposed consensus is not material to the claims of a particular plaintiff against a particular defendant, especially when the particular exposure circumstance is not associated with mesothelioma in most of the relevant studies. In Juni, the defense had presented many studies that failed to show any association between occupational brake work and mesothelioma. The court might also have added that a characterization of low exposure is extremely amiguous, depending upon the implicit comparison that is being made with other exposures. It is impossible to fit a particular plaintiff’s exposure into the scale of low, medium, and high without some further context.

Single Exposure Sufficiency Rejected

The evidence that chrysotile itself causes mesothelioma remains weak, but the outcome of Juni turned not on the broad general causation question, but on the question whether even suggestive evidence of chrysotile causation had been established for the exposure circumstances of an automobile mechanic, such as Mr. Juni. Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses maintained that Juni’s cumulative asbestos exposures caused his mesothelioma, but they had no meaningful quantification or even reasonable estimate of his exposure.

Citing the Court of Appeals decision in Reeps, the Appellate Division held that plaintiff’s expert witnesses’ causation opinions must be supported by reasonable quantification of the plaintiff’s exposure, or some some scientific method, such as mathematical modeling based upon actual work history, or by comparison of plaintiff’s claimed exposure with the exposure of workers in reported studies that establish a relevant risk from those workers’ exposure. In the Juni case, however, there were no exposure measurements or scientific models, and the comparison with workers doing similar tasks failed to show a causal relationship between the asbestos exposure in those tasks and mesothelioma.

Expert Witness Admissibility and Sufficiency Requires Evaluation of Both Direct and Cross-examination Testimony and Relied Upon Studies

The Juni decision teaches another important lesson for challenging expert witness testimony in New York: glib generalizations delivered on direct examination must be considered in the light of admissions and concessions made on cross-examination, and the entire record. In Juni, the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Jacqueline Moline and Stephen Markowitz, asserted that asbestos in Ford’s friction products was a cause of plaintiff’s mesothelioma. Cross-examination, however, revealed that these assertions were lacking in factual support.

Cumulative Exposure

On cross-examination, the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ statements about exposure levels proved meaningless. Moline attempted to equate visible dust with sufficient asbestos exposure to cause disease, but she conceded on cross-examination that studies had shown that 99% of brake lining debris was not asbestos. Most of the dust observed from brake drums is composed of resins used to manufacture brake linings and pads. The heat and pressure of the brake drum causes much of the remaining chrysotile to transform into a non-fibrous mineral, fosterite.

Similarly, Markowitz had to acknowledge that chrysotile has a “serpentine” structure, with individual fibers curling in a way that makes deeper penetration into the lungs more difficult. Furthermore, chrysotile, a hydrated magnesium silicate, melts in the lungs, not in the hands. The human lung can clear particulates, and so there is no certainty that remaining chrysotile fibers from brake lining exposures ever reach the periphery of the lung, where they could interact with the pleura, the tissue in which mesothelioma arises.

Increased Risk, “Linking,” and Association Are Not Causation – Exculpatory Epidemiologic Studies

When pressed, plaintiffs’ expert witnesses lapsed into characterizing the epidemiologic studies of brake and automobile mechanics as showing increased risk or association, not causation. Causation, not association, however, was the issue. Witnesses’ invocation of weasel words, such as “increased risk,” “linkage,” and “association” are insufficient in themselves to show the requisite causation in long-latency toxic exposure cases. For automobile mechanics, even the claimed association was weak at best, with plaintiffs’ expert witnesses having to acknowledge that 21 of 22 epidemiologic studies failed to show an association between automobile mechanics’ asbestos exposure and risk of mesothelioma.

The Juni case was readily distinguishable from other cases in which the Markowitz was able to identify epidemiologic studies that showed that visible dust from a specific product contained sufficient respirable asbestos to cause mesothelioma. Id. (citing Caruolo v John Crane, Inc., 226 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2000). As the Appellate Division put the matter, there was no “no valid line of reasoning or permissible inference which could have led the jury to reach its result.” Asbestos plaintiffs must satisfy the standards set out in the New York Court of Appeals decisions, Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434 2006), and Cornell v. 360 W. 51st St. Realty, LLC, 22 N.Y.3d 762 (2014), for exposure evidence and causal inferences, as well.

New York now joins other discerning courts in rejecting regulatory rationales of “no safe exposure,” and default “linear no threshold” exposure-response models as substitutes for inferring specific causation.² A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but in jurisprudence, consistency is often the bedrock for the rule of law.

1 The ruse of passing off “no known safe exposure” as evidence that even the lowest exposure was unsafe has been going on for a long time, but not all judges are snookered by this rhetorical sleight of hand. See, e.g., Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 439 S.W.3d 332, 358 (Tex. 2014) (“the failure of science to isolate a safe level of exposure does not prove specific causation”).

2 See, e.g. Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 439 S.W.3d 332, 358 (Tex. 2014) (failing to identify safe levels of exposure does not suffice to show specific causation); Henricksen v. ConocoPhillips Co., 605 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1165-66 (E.D. Wash. 2009) (rejecting a “no threshold” model of exposure-response as unfalsifiable and unvalidated, and immaterial to the causation claims); Pluck v. BP Oil Pipeline Co., 640 F.3d 671, 679 (6th Cir. 2011) (rejecting claim that plaintiff’s exposure to benzene “above background level,” but below EPA’s maximum permissible contaminant level, caused her cancer); Newkirk v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 2d 10006, 1015 (E.D. Wash. 2010) (rejecting Dr. David Egilman’s proffered testimony on specific causation based upon his assertion that there was no known safe level of diacetyl exposure).

Posted in Asbestos, Causation, Expert Witnesses, Frye, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on New York Rejects the Asbestos Substantial Factor Ruse (Juni Case)

Jersey Devil and the Occult (Asbestos)

November 7th, 2016

Amosite Mine in Collingswood, New Jersey

Amosite is a commercial term for the fibrous mineral grunerite (Fe₇Si₈O₂₂(OH)₂). Grunerite and its fibrous form, amosite, does not occur naturally in the sedimentary terrain of southern New Jersey.

And yet, my son and I encountered a treasure trove of amosite in the attic of a house on East Franklin Avenue, in Collingswood, New Jersey, not far from the Cooper River. We were within 24 hours of buying a house to renovate, when an astute building inspector called our attention to unusual attic insulation.¹ Most houses built right after World War I have no insulation, or perhaps cork insulation between the attic joists. This house had loose, greyish-brown tufted fibrous material several inches thick spread across the entire attic floor. A local analytical laboratory confirmed that the loose mineral fiber was largely amosite.²

Asbestos in Attic1

The where, when, how, and why there were many cubic yards of amosite in the attic of a house in Collingswood is a mystery, but one clue is that there are several shipyards nearby, including what once was the New York Shipbuilding & Dry Dock, the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, and Cramps Shipyard. My unverified hunch is that after World War II, these shipyards gave away, or sold, loose amosite asbestos, which was no longer needed, and the use of which was discouraged by Naval regulations in favor of molded, pre-formed asbestos-containing insulation. The presence of such loose, fibrous amphibole asbestos in residential construction raises serious issues for exposure assessment in epidemiologic studies and in litigation cases, both of which proceed on the glib assumption that workplace exposures are the only meaningful asbestos exposures to be measured. Occult exposure to amosite or even worse, crocidolite, may well explain any number of isolated “black swan” cases of mesothelioma among workers with limited exposure to chrysotile. The amosite in the house’s attic was truly occult – hidden and scary – to the sellers of the house and to us as potential buyers.³ The contract for the sale of the house fell apart over the sellers’ and buyers’ inability to agree upon what the appropriate remediation would be.

One of the serious disservices performed by Dr. Irving Selikoff was his conflation of the various asbestos mineral types as equally dangerous.⁴ His motivation was quite transparent. He and his staff were working closely with plaintiffs’ counsel, and other plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, in asbestos personal injury and property damages lawsuits. Although the amphibole asbestos minerals were known to be much more dangerous than chrysotile (white asbestos), the mining and distributing companies were mostly South African, and judgment proof in United States courts. The lawsuit industry required propagating the myth of equal risk in order to keep the chrysotile mining and milling companies from avoiding liability by drawing scientific comparisons between and among the different fiber types.film Despicable Me 3

1 Inspections Plus, LLC, Clementon, New Jersey 08021.

2 EMSL Analytical, Inc., 200 Route 130 North, Cinnaminson, NJ 08077.

3 See also “Asbestos isn’t just in old fibro sheeting it can be in everything from fences to carpets,” The Courier Mail (No. 28, 2015) (“Bulk loose fill insulation is now rarely found but may be encountered unexpectedly, e.g. DIY lost insulation and fire-stop packing around cables between floors.”).

4 See “Hide the Substantial Factors in Asbestos Litigation”; “Selikoff and the Mystery of the Disappearing Amphiboles.”

Posted in Asbestos, Causation | Comments Off on Jersey Devil and the Occult (Asbestos)

High, Low and Right-Sided Colonics – Ridding the Courts of Junk Science

July 16th, 2016

Not surprisingly, many of Selikoff’s litigation- and regulatory-driven opinions have not fared well, such as the notions that asbestos causes gastrointestinal cancers and that all asbestos minerals have equal potential and strength to cause mesothelioma. Forty years after Selikoff testified in litigation that occupational asbestos exposure caused an insulator’s colorectal cancer, the Institute of Medicine reviewed the extant evidence and announced that the evidence was “suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between asbestos exposure and pharyngeal, stomach, and colorectal cancers.” Jonathan Samet, et al., eds., Institute of Medicine Review of Asbestos: Selected Cancers (2006).[1] The Institute of Medicine’s monograph has fostered a more circumspect approach in some of the federal agencies. The National Cancer Institute’s website now proclaims that the evidence is insufficient to permit a conclusion that asbestos causes non-pulmonary cancers of gastrointestinal tract and throat.[2]

As discussed elsewhere, Selikoff testified as early as 1966 that asbestos causes colorectal cancer, in advance of any meaningful evidence to support such an opinion, and then he, and his protégées, worked hard to lace the scientific literature with their pronouncements on the subject, without disclosing their financial, political, and positional conflicts of interest.[3]

With plaintiffs’ firm’s (Lanier) zealous pursuit of bias information from the University of Idaho, in the LoGuidice case, what are we to make of Selikoff’s and his minions’ dubious ethics of failed disclosure. Do Selikoff and Mount Sinai receive a pass because their asbestos research predated the discovery of ethics? The “Lobby” (as the late Douglas Liddell called Selikoff and his associates)[4] has seriously distorted truth-finding in any number of litigations, but nowhere are the Lobby’s distortions more at work than in lawsuits for claimed asbestos injuries. Here the conflicts of interests truly have had a deleterious effect on the quality of civil justice. As we saw with the Selikoff exceptionalism displayed by the New York Supreme Court in reviewing third-party subpoenas,[5] some courts seem bent on ignoring evidence-based analyses in favor of Mount Sinai faith-based initiatives.

Current Asbestos Litigation Claims Involving Colorectal Cancer

Although Selikoff has passed from the litigation scene, his trainees and followers have lined up at the courthouse door to propagate his opinions. Even before the IOM’s 2006 monograph, more sophisticated epidemiologists consistently rejected the Selikoff conclusion on asbestos and colon cancer, which grew out of Selikoff’s litigation activities.[6] And yet, the minions keep coming.

In the pre-Daubert era, defendants lacked an evidentiary challenge to the Selikoff’s opinion that asbestos caused colorectal cancer. Instead of contesting the legal validity or sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ general causation claims, defendants often focused on the unreliability of the causal attribution for the specific claimant’s disease. These early cases are often misunderstood to be challenges to expert witnesses’ opinions about whether asbestos causes colorectal cancer; they were not.[7]

Of course, after the IOM’s 2006 monograph, active expert witness gatekeeping should eliminate asbestos gastrointestinal cancer claims, but sadly they persist. Perhaps, courts simply considered the issue “grandfathered” in from the era in which judicial scrutiny of expert witness opinion testimony was restricted. Perhaps, defense counsel are failing to frame and support their challenges properly. Perhaps both.

Arthur Frank Jumps the Gate

Although ostensibly a “Frye” state, Pennsylvania judges have, when moved by the occasion, to apply a fairly thorough analysis of proffered expert witness opinion.[8] On occasion, Pennsylvania judges have excluded unreliably or invalidly supported causation opinions, under the Pennsylvania version of the Frye standard. A recent case, however, tried before a Workman’s Compensation Judge (WCJ), and appealed to the Commonwealth Court, shows how inconsistent the application of the standard can be, especially when Selikoff’s legacy views are at issue.

Michael Piatetsky, an architect, died of colorectal cancer. Before his death, he and his wife filed a worker’s compensation claim, in which they alleged that his disease was caused by his workplace exposure to asbestos. Garrison Architects v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Piatetsky), No. 1095 C.D. 2015, Pa. Cmwlth. Ct., 2016 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 72 (Jan. 22, 2016) [cited as Piatetsky]. Mr. Piatetsky was an architect, almost certainly knowledgeable about asbestos hazards generally. Despite his knowledge, Piatetsky eschewed personal protective equipment even when working at dusty work sites well marked with warnings. Although he had engaged in culpable conduct, the employer in worker compensation proceedings does not have ordinary negligence defenses, such as contributory negligence or assumption of risk.

In litigating the Piatetsky’s claim, the employer dragged its feet and failed to name an expert witness. Eventually, after many requests for continuances, the Workers’ Compensation Judge barred the employer from presenting an expert witness. With the record closed, and without an expert witness, the Judge understandably ruled in favor of the claimant.

The employer, sans expert witness, had to confront claimant’s expert witness, Arthur L. Frank, a minion of Selikoff and a frequent testifier in asbestos and many other litigations. Frank, of course, opined that asbestos causes colon cancer and that it caused Mr. Piatetsky’s cancer. Mr. Piatetsky’s colon cancer originated on the right side of his colon. Dr. Frank thus emphasized that asbestos causes colon cancer in all locations, but especially on the right side in view of one study’s having concluded “that colon cancer caused by asbestos is more likely to begin on the right side.” Piatetsky at *6.

On appeal, the employer sought relief on several issues, but the only one of interest here is the employer’s argument “that Claimant’s medical expert based his opinion on flimsy medical studies.” Piatetsky at *10. The employer’s appeal seemed to go off the rails with the insistence that the Claimant’s medical opinion was invalid because Dr. Frank relied upon studies not involving architects. Piatetsky at *14. The Commonwealth Court was able to point to testimony, although probably exaggerated, which suggested that Mr. Piatetsky had been heavily exposed, at least at times, and thus his exposure was similar to that in the studies cited by Frank.

With respect to Frank’s right-sided (non-sinister) opinion, the Commonwealth Court framed the employer’s issue as a contention that Dr. Frank’s opinion on the asbestos-relatedness of right-sided colon cancer was “not universally accepted.” But universal acceptance has never been the test or standard for the rejection or acceptance of expert witness opinion testimony in any state. Either the employer badly framed its appeal, or the appellate court badly misstated the employer’s ground for relief. In any event, the Commonwealth Court never addressed the relevant legal standard in its discussion.

The Claimant argued that the hearing Judge had found that Frank’s opinion was based on “numerous studies.” Piatetsky at *15. None of these studies is cited to permit the public to assess the argument and the Court’s acceptance of it. The appellate court made inappropriately short work of this appellate issue by confusing general and specific causation, and invoking Mr. Piatetsky’s age, his lack of family history of colon cancer, Frank’s review of medical records, testimony, and work records, as warranting Frank’s causal inference. None of these factors is relevant to general causation, and none is probative of the specific causation claim. Many if not most colon cancers have no identifiable risk factor, and Dr. Frank had no way to rule out baseline risk, even if there were an increased risk from asbestos exposure. Piatetsky at *16. With no defense expert witness, the employer certainly had a difficult appellate journey. It is hard for the reader of the Commonwealth Court’s opinion to determine whether the case was poorly defended, poorly briefed on appeal, or poorly described by the appellate judges.

In any event, the right-sided ruse of Arthur Frank went unreprimanded. Intellectual due process might have led the appellate court to cite the article at issue, but it failed to do so. It is interesting and curious to see how the appellate court gave a detailed recitation of the controverted facts of asbestos exposure, while how glib the court was when describing the scientific issues and evidence. Nonetheless, the article referenced vaguely, which went uncited by the appellate court, was no doubt the paper: K. Jakobsson, M. Albin & L. Hagmar, “Asbestos, cement, and cancer in the right part of the colon,” 51 Occup. & Envt’l Med. 95 (1994).

These authors 24 observed versus 9.63 expected right-sided colon cancers, and they concluded that there was an increased rate of right-sided colon cancer in the asbestos cement plant workers. Notably the authors’ reference population had a curiously low rate of right-sided colon cancer. For left-sided colon cancer, the authors 9.3 expected cases but observed only 5 cases in the asbestos-cement cohort. Contrary to Frank’s suggestion, the authors did not conclude that right-sided colon cancers had been caused by asbestos; indeed, the authors never reached any conclusion whether asbestos causes colorectal cancer under any circumstances. In their discussion, these authors noted that “[d]espite numerous epidemiological and experimental studies, there is no consensus concerning exposure to asbestos and risks of gastrointestinal cancer.” Jakobsson at 99; see also Dorsett D. Smith, “Does Asbestos Cause Additional Malignancies Other than Lung Cancer,” chap. 11, in Dorsett D. Smith, The Health Effects of Asbestos: An Evidence-based Approach 143, 154 (2015). Even this casual description of the Jakobsson study will awake the learned reader to the multiple comparisons that went on in this cohort study, with outcomes reported for left, right, rectum, and multiple sites, without any adjustment to the level of significance. Risk of right-sided colon cancer was not a pre-specified outcome of the study, and the results of subsequent studies have never corroborated this small cohort study.

A sane understanding of subgroup analyses is important to judicial gatekeeping. See “Sub-group Analyses in Epidemiologic Studies — Dangers of Statistical Significance as a Bright-Line Test” (May 17, 2011). The chapter on statistics in the Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence (3d ed. 2011) has some prudent caveats for multiple comparisons and testing, but neither the chapter on epidemiology, nor the chapter on clinical medicine[9], provides any sense of the dangers of over-interpreting subgroup analyses.

Some commentators have argued that we must not dissuade scientists from doing subgroup analysis, but the issue is not whether they should be done, but how they should be interpreted.[10] Certainly many authors have called for caution in how subgroup analyses are interpreted[11], but apparently Expert Witness Arthur Frank, did not receive the memo, before testifying in the Piatetsky case, and the Commonwealth Court did not before deciding this case.

[1] As good as the IOM process can be on occasion, even its reviews are sometimes less than thorough. The asbestos monograph gave no consideration to alcohol in the causation of laryngeal cancer, and no consideration to smoking in its analysis of asbestos and colorectal cancer. See, e.g., Peter S. Liang, Ting-Yi Chen & Edward Giovannucci, “Cigarette smoking and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: Systematic review and meta-analysis,” 124 Internat’l J. Cancer 2406, 2410 (2009) (“Our results indicate that both past and current smokers have an increased risk of [colorectal cancer] incidence and mortality. Significantly increased risk was found for current smokers in terms of mortality (RR 5 1.40), former smokers in terms of incidence (RR 5 1.25)”); Lindsay M. Hannan, Eric J. Jacobs and Michael J. Thun, “The Association between Cigarette Smoking and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in a Large Prospective Cohort from the United States,” 18 Cancer Epidemiol., Biomarkers & Prevention 3362 (2009).

[2] National Cancer Institute, “Asbestos Exposure and Cancer Risk” (last visited July 10, 2016) (“In addition to lung cancer and mesothelioma, some studies have suggested an association between asbestos exposure and gastrointestinal and colorectal cancers, as well as an elevated risk for cancers of the throat, kidney, esophagus, and gallbladder (3, 4). However, the evidence is inconclusive.”).

[3] Compare “Health Hazard Progress Notes: Compensation Advance Made in New York State,” 16(5) Asbestos Worker 13 (May 1966) (thanking Selikoff for testifying in a colon cancer case) with, Irving J. Selikoff, “Epidemiology of gastrointestinal cancer,” 9 Envt’l Health Persp. 299 (1974) (arguing for his causal conclusion between asbestos and all gastrointestinal cancers, with no acknowledgment of his role in litigation or his funding from the asbestos insulators’ union).

[4] F.D.K. Liddell, “Magic, Menace, Myth and Malice,” 41 Ann. Occup. Hyg. 3, 3 (1997); see also “The Lobby Lives – Lobbyists Attack IARC for Conducting Scientific Research” (Feb. 19, 2013).

[5]

See “The LoGiudice Inquisitiorial Subpoena & Its Antecedents in N.Y. Law” (July 14, 2016).

[6] See, e.g., Richard Doll & Julian Peto, Asbestos: Effects on health of exposure to asbestos 8 (1985) (“In particular, there are no grounds for believing that gastrointestinal cancers in general are peculiarly likely to be caused by asbestos exposure.”).

[7] See “Landrigan v. The Celotex Corporation, Revisited” (June 4, 2013); Landrigan v. The Celotex Corp., 127 N.J. 404, 605 A.2d 1079 (1992); Caterinicchio v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 127 NJ. 428, 605 A.2d 1092 (1992). In both Landrigan and Caterinicchio, there had been no challenge to the reliability or validity of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ general causation opinions. Instead, the trial courts entered judgments, assuming arguendo that asbestos can cause colorectal cancer (a dubious proposition), on the ground that the low relative risk cited by plaintiffs’ expert witnesses (about 1.5) was factually insufficient to support a verdict for plaintiffs on specific causation. Indeed, the relative risk suggested that the odds were about 2 to 1 in defendants’ favor that the plaintiffs’ colorectal cancers were not caused by asbestos.

[8] See, e.g., Porter v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., Sept. Term 2007, No. 03275. 2016 WL 614572 (Phila. Cty. Com. Pleas, Oct. 5, 2015); “Demonstration of Frye Gatekeeping in Pennsylvania Birth Defects Case” (Oct. 6, 2015).

[9] John B. Wong, Lawrence O. Gostin & Oscar A. Cabrera, “Reference Guide on Medical Testimony,” in Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence 687 (3d ed. 2011).

[10] See, e.g., Phillip I. Good & James W. Hardin, Common Errors in Statistics (and How to Avoid Them) 13 (2003) (proclaiming a scientists’ Bill of Rights under which they should be allowed to conduct subgroup analyses); Ralph I. Horwitz, Burton H. Singer, Robert W. Makuch, Catherine M. Viscoli, “Clinical versus statistical considerations in the design and analysis of clinical research,” 51 J. Clin. Epidemiol. 305 (1998) (arguing for the value of subgroup analyses). In United States v. Harkonen, the federal government prosecuted a scientist for fraud in sending a telecopy that described a clinical trial as “demonstrating” a benefit in a subgroup of a secondary trial outcome. Remarkably, in the Harkonen case, the author, and criminal defendant, was describing a result in a pre-specified outcome, in a plausible but post-hoc subgroup, which result accorded with prior clinical trials and experimental evidence. United States v. Harkonen (D. Calif. 2009); United States v. Harkonen (D. Calif. 2010) (post-trial motions), aff’d, 510 F. App’x 633 (9th Cir. 2013) (unpublished), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 824, ___ U.S. ___ (2014); Brief by Scientists And Academics as Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, W. Scott Harkonen v. United States, No. 13-180 (filed Sept. 4, 2013).

[11] See “Sub-group Analyses in Epidemiologic Studies — Dangers of Statistical Significance as a Bright-Line Test” (May 17, 2011) (collecting commentary); see also Lemuel A. Moyé, Statistical Reasoning in Medicine: The Intuitive P-Value Primer 206, 225 (2d ed. 2006) (noting that subgroup analyses are often misleading: “Fishing expeditions for significance commonly catch only the junk of sampling error”); Victor M. Montori, Roman Jaeschke, Holger J. Schünemann, Mohit Bhandari, Jan L Brozek, P. J. Devereaux & Gordon H Guyatt, “Users’ guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports,” 329 Brit. Med. J. 1093 (2004) (“Beware subgroup analysis”); Susan F. Assmann, Stuart J. Pocock, Laura E. Enos, Linda E. Kasten, “Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses) of baseline data in clinical trials,” 355 Lancet 1064 (2000); George Davey Smith & Mathias Egger, “Commentary: Incommunicable knowledge? Interpreting and applying the results of clinical trials and meta-analyses,” 51 J. Clin. Epidemiol. 289 (1998) (arguing against post-hoc hypothesis testing); Douglas G. Altman, “Statistical reviewing for medical journals,” 17 Stat. Med. 2662 (1998); Douglas G. Altman, “Commentary: Within trial variation – A false trail?” 51 J. Clin. Epidemiol. 301 (1998) (noting that observed associations are expected to vary across subgroup because of random variability); Christopher Bulpitt, “Subgroup Analysis,” 2 Lancet: 31 (1988).

Posted in Asbestos, Causation, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Rule 702 | Comments Off on High, Low and Right-Sided Colonics – Ridding the Courts of Junk Science

The LoGiudice Inquisitiorial Subpoena & Its Antecedents in N.Y. Law

July 14th, 2016

The plaintiffs’ bar’s inquisition into funding has been a recurring theme in the asbestos and other litigations.[1] It is thus interesting to compare the friendly reception Justice Moulton gave plaintiffs’ subpoena in LoGiudice[2] with the New York courts’ relatively recent hostility toward a defendant’s subpoena to Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.

A few years ago, Justice Sherry Heitler quashed a defendant’s attempt to subpoena information from the archives of a deceased, former faculty member of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine (“Mt. Sinai”), in Reyniak v. Barnstead Internat’l, No. 102688-08, 2010 NY Slip Op 50689, 2010 WL 1568424 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 6, 2010). In a cursory opinion, Justice Heitler cited institutional expense, chilling of research, and scholars’ fears that their unpublished notes, ideas, and observations would become public as a result of litigation. Heitler relied upon and followed an earlier New York state court’s decision that adopted a rather lopsided “balancing” analysis, which permitted the New York courts to ignore the legitimate needs of defendants for access to underlying data.[3]

Remarkably, Justice Heitler failed to cite a federal appellate court’s subsequent decision, which upheld the tobacco companies’ subpoena to Mount Sinai.[4] Her opinion also ignored the important context of the asbestos litigation, in which Selikoff, long since deceased, played a crucial role in fomenting and perpetuating litigation, with tendentious publications and pronouncements. Some might say, “manufacturing certainty.” Perpetuating the Litigation Industry’s Selikoff mythology, Justice Heitler described Selikoff as a ground breaking asbestos researcher, but she either ignored, or was ignorant of, his testimonial adventures, his attempts to influence litigation with ex parte meetings with presiding judges, and his other questionable litigation-related conduct.

Selikoff’s participation in litigation was not always above board. His supposedly ground-breaking work was funded by the insulator’s union, which also sought him out as a testifying expert witness. Among his many testimonial adventures,[5] Selikoff testified as early as 1966 that asbestos causes colorectal cancer, and that it caused a specific claimant’s colorectal cancer. See “Health Hazard Progress Notes: Compensation Advance Made in New York State,” 16(5) Asbestos Worker 13 (May 1966) (thanking Selikoff for his having given testimony to support an insulator’s claim that asbestos caused his colorectal cancer). To be sure, Selikoff made his litigation claims in the scientific literature as well, but without any acknowledgement of his involving in litigation involving this very issue, and his funding by the asbestos union.[6]

Given the dubious provenance of many of Selikoff’s opinions,[7] the disparate treatment of the subpoenas in LoGuidice and Reyniak is irreconcilable. The inflated prestige of Selikoff and Mount Sinai blinded the New York state trial courts to Selikoff’s role in litigation and his biased assessments in science. The judicial hypocrisy may well be the consequence of how the academic community has promoted Selikoff’s reputation, while working assiduously to undermine the reputations of anyone who has been connected with the defense of occupational disease claims. Consider, for instance, how Labor (Marxist) historians have railed against the role that Dr. Anthony Lanza played in personal injury litigation following the Gauley Bridge tunnel construction. See Jock McCulloch and Geoffrey Tweedale, “Anthony J. Lanza, Silicosis and the Gauley Bridge ‘Nine’,” 27 Social History of Medicine 86 (2013). While these historians deplore Lanza, however, they laud Selikoff. See “British Labor Historians Belaboring American Labor History – Gauley Bridge” (Oct. 14, 2013). Politics and occupational disease litigation are like that.

[1] See In re All Litigation filed by Maune, Raichle, Hartley, French & Mudd LLC v. 3M Co., No. 5-15-0235, Ill. App., 5th Dist.; 2016 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1392 (June 30, 2016); “Engineers for Automakers Must Unredact Agendas in Madison County Asbestos Litigation,” Madison County Record (July 2016); Lynn A. Lenhart, “Meeting Agendas Between Non-Party Consultant and Counsel for Asbestos Friction Clients Not Privileged” (July 5, 2016). See also Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. v. Georgia-Pacific LLC, 2013 WL 2435565, 2013 NY Slip Op 04127 (June 6, 2013), aff’d, 2013 WL 2435565 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dep’t June 6, 2013); “A Cautionary Tale on How Not to Sponsor a Scientific Study for Litigation” (June 21, 2013).

[2] LoGiudice v. American Talc Co., No. 190253/2014, 2016 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2360, (N.Y. Sup., N.Y. Cty., June 20, 2016).

[3] See In re R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 136 Misc 2d 282, 285, 518 N.Y.S.2d 729 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. 1987); see also In re New York County Data Entry Worker Prod. Liab.Litig., No. 14003/92, 1994 WL 87529 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Jan 31, 1994) (denying discovery because “special circumstances,” vaguely defined were absent).

[4] Mount Sinai School of Medicine v. The American Tobacco Co., 866 F.2d 552 (2d Cir. 1889).

[5] “Selikoff and the Mystery of the Disappearing Testimony” (Dec. 3, 2010).

[6] See, e.g., Irving J. Selikoff, “Epidemiology of gastrointestinal cancer,” 9 Envt’l Health Persp. 299 (1974) (arguing for his causal conclusion between asbestos and all gastrointestinal cancers).movie Her trailer

[7] See generally “Scientific Prestige, Reputation, Authority & The Creation of Scientific Dogmas” (Oct. 4, 2014); “Historians Should Verify Not Vilify or Abilify – The Difficult Case of Irving Selikoff” (Jan. 4, 2014).

Posted in Asbestos, Cognitive Biases, Conflicts of Interest, Expert Witness Discovery | Comments Off on The LoGiudice Inquisitiorial Subpoena & Its Antecedents in N.Y. Law

The Webb of Unsophistication in Products Liability Law

May 29th, 2016

The Heart of the Matter

The classic early cases in products liability law were about consumers hurt by consumer products, sold by manufacturers or dealers directly to consumers. The key component of these cases was inequality of bargaining power, of knowledge about latent defects or hazards, and of control over the discovery of latent hazards or defects. American products liability law was created around consumer products. Just think of Henningsen, Escola, and MacPherson.[1] These were all consumer products for which the rhetoric about inequality of bargaining, knowledge, and control over design, manufacturing, and latent hazards sometimes makes sense. The paradigmatic model for products liability, however, frequently does not work for the three-way relationship of sales of products to large industrial employers. The model especially does not work when the product is a raw material used throughout a factory, or incorporated into another product.

Many courts have failed to come to grips with the inadequacy of the consumer model for products liability cases in instances of occupational harm to industrial employees. Courts have been trying to ram this square peg into a round hole since the early asbestos litigation (which perhaps made some sense because there was inequality between Johns Manville and most vendees), but makes no sense when John Manville is itself the purchaser.

The Tangled Webb in California Law

The Webb case received some attention after the California Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s entry of JNOV for defendant Special Electric on the so-called sophisticated intermediary defense. See “California Supreme Court Set To Untangle Webb” (July 7, 2013); “Big Blue & The Sophisticated User and Intermediary Defenses” (Sept. 27, 2014); G. Jeff Coons, “What a Tangled Webb We Weave: Court Imposes Failure to Warn Liability On Supplier to Johns-Manville” (April 2013). Special Electric petition for review, and eventually the California Supreme Court called for full briefing and oral argument in the Webb case.

The wheels of justice grind slowly in California. Special Electric filed its opening brief on the merits, on September 10, 2013. Webb’s widow answered in December 2013, and Special Electric replied in February 2014. Several amici curiae joined the fray in April 2014. Mark A. Behrens filed a brief on behalf of the Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., Chamber of Commerce, NFIB Small Business Legal Center, and American Chemistry Council. The Pacific Legal Foundation also filed, as did Elementis Chemicals Inc.

After mulling over the briefs for two years, the California Supreme Court heard argument on March 1, 2016, and then in surprisingly short order, affirmed the intermediate appellate, earlier this week. The Supreme Court’s ruling upheld a Court of Appeal’s decision that reversed a judgment for defendant Special Electric, based upon a jury verdict in favor of William Webb, who was exposed to crocidolite sold by Special Electric, and which caused him to develop mesothelioma in 2011. The Supreme Court’s opinion [2] held that sophisticated intermediary doctrine was a complete legal defense, even potentially for an asbestos supplier, but declined to apply it to the benefit of Special Electric, which had misrepresented facts about crocidolite and offered no evidence that its purchaser was sophisticated about crocidolite asbestos and its unique relationship with mesothelioma. [Slip opinion cited here as Webb.] Webb v. Special Elec. Co., Inc., 2016 BL 163642, Cal., No. S209927, 5/23/16).

The majority opinion[3] fortunately was able to separate the poorly framed and supported defense by Special Electric from the basic tenets of tort law and the sophisticated intermediary defense. To the extent that anyone doubted the validity of the sophisticated intermediary defense, the Webb Court formally adopted the doctrine as the law of California, as set out in the Second and Third Restatements of Tort Law. Webb at 15-16. According to the Court, a defendant may set up sophisticated intermediary doctrine as a complete defense, to failure to warn claims for known or knowable product risks, sounding in negligence or in strict liability, when the defendant supplier:

“(1) provides adequate warnings to the product’s immediate purchaser, or sells to a sophisticated purchaser that it knows is aware or should be aware of the specific danger, and

(2) reasonably relies on the purchaser to convey appropriate warnings to downstream users who will encounter the product.”

Webb at 16 (emphasis in original).[4]

As an affirmative defense, the defendant supplier must carry its burden of showing that it adequately warned the intermediary, or that it knew the intermediary knew or should have known of the specific hazard, and that it reasonably relied upon the purchaser to transmit warnings. Id.

On appeal, the California Supreme Court held that defendant Special Electric failed to preserve its entitlement to the sophisticated intermediary defense because “it never attempted to show that it actually or reasonably relied on Johns-Manville to warn end users. Nor did Special Electric request a jury instruction or verdict form question on the sophisticated intermediary doctrine.” Webb at 23.

Alternatively, on the assumption that Special Electric preserved the defense, the Court held that this defendant failed to establish the defense as a matter of law because:

“[a]lthough the record clearly shows Johns-Manville was aware of the risks of asbestos in general, no evidence established it knew about the particularly acute risks posed by the crocidolite asbestos Special Electric supplied. In addition, plaintiffs presented evidence that at least one Special Electric salesperson told customers crocidolite was safer than other types of asbestos fiber, when the opposite was true.”

Webb at 23.

The Webb Court reviewed the Tort Restatements’ embrace of the sophisticated intermediary defense in both the Second and Third editions. The Webb Court noted that the Third Restatement demonstrated the continued validity and vitality of the defense, as had been expressed in the Section 388 of the Restatement Second of Torts.[5] The Court noted and followed the Third Restatement’s recitation of guiding considerations for invoking and sustaining the defense:

“There is no general rule as to whether one supplying a product for the use of others through an intermediary has a duty to warn the ultimate product user directly or may rely on the intermediary to relay warnings. The standard is one of reasonableness in the circumstances. Among the factors to be considered are the gravity of the risks posed by the product, the likelihood that the intermediary will convey the information to the ultimate user, and the feasibility and effectiveness of giving a warning directly to the user.”

Webb at 15 (citing Restatement 3d Torts, Products Liability, § 2, com. i, at p. 30.) Citing California precedent, the Webb Court noted that

“[t]he focus of the [sophisticated intermediary] defense . . . is whether the danger in question was so generally known within the trade or profession that a manufacturer should not have been expected to provide a warning specific to the group to which plaintiff belonged.”

Webb at 9-10 (quoting from Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. 43 Cal.4th 56, 72 (2008). The pertinent legal test is whether a reasonable supplier would have known of the intermediary’s sophistication with respect to the relevant risk. Webb at 20.[6] Of course, the existence of a pervasive regulatory control of risk creation, detection, and mitigation in the workplace would count heavily in this objective test. “Every person has a right to presume that every other perform his duty and obey the law.” Webb at 21 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added).

The Restatement factors, however, did not support Special Electric’s invocation of the defense in a case involving:

(1) crocidolite asbestos, one of the most hazardous substances known,

(2) defendant’s affirmative and blatantly false misrepresentations of the relative safety of crocidolite relative to chrysotile asbestos,[7] and

(3) a complete failure of proof that the purchaser, Johns Manville, knew that crocidolite was especially hazardous with respect to the causation of mesothelioma.

Webb at 23-24. Factors one and two were givens for defense counsel, but factor three speaks to unnecessary coyness on the part of the defense. Showing that Johns Manville was well aware of the extraordinarily great hazard of crocidolite would have been relatively easy to do from past transcripts, articles, speeches, and litigation conduct of the Johns Manville companies. Despite the extreme hazards from uncontrolled asbestos exposures, the Webb case explained that the sophisticated intermediary defense was not per se inapplicable to asbestos cases, and went so far as to disapprove an earlier California Court of Appeals decision that refused to apply the defense in the asbestos personal injury context when no warnings had been given.[8] “Sophistication obviates the need for warnings because a sophisticated purchaser already knows or should know of the relevant risks.” Webb at 17-18.

The Webb case acknowledged that defective design claims against raw material suppliers are incoherent and invalid, whether for the raw material itself, or for downstream design defect claims against for the product with the incorporated raw material. “[A] basic raw material such as sand, gravel, or kerosene cannot be defectively designed.” Webb at 11-12 (quoting from Restatement 3d Torts, Products Liability, § 5, com. c, at p. 134).[9]

The Webb Court also evinced a healthy disrespect for the notion that tort law is only about spreading risk and compensating injured persons. The Court acknowledged that in some instances, there were competing policies of compensating persons injured by products and “encouraging conduct that can feasibly be performed.” Webb at 2. The Court also acknowledged that there were hazards to warning when none was needed or when the absence of a warning would not be a legal cause of harm:

“Because sophisticated users already know, or should know, about the product’s dangers, the manufacturer’s failure to warn is not the legal cause of any harm. A sophisticated user’s knowledge is thus the equivalent of prior notice. The defense serves public policy, because requiring warnings of obvious or generally known product dangers could invite consumer disregard and contempt for warnings in general.”

Webb at 9 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Furthermore, the sophisticated intermediary defense balances the need for the worker-consumer’s safety with “the practical realities of supplying products.” Webb at 17.

The Webb decision puts California in line with the majority rule that recognizes the validity of the sophisticated intermediary defense, and embraces real-world truth that:

“[in] some cases, the buyer’s sophistication can be a substitute for actual warnings, but this limited exception only applies if the buyer was so knowledgeable about the material supplied that it knew or should have known about the particular danger.”

Webb at 17.[10] The Court noted and agreed with the Restatement Third’s observation that imposing liability upon raw material suppliers for failure to warn can be unduly and unfairly burdensome when such liability would require remote suppliers

“to develop expertise regarding a multitude of different end-products and to investigate the actual use of raw materials by manufacturers over whom the supplier has no control.”

Webb at 12 (quoting from Restatement 3d Torts, Products Liability, § 5, com. c, at p. 134).

Concurrence

Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, along with Justice Ming W. Chin, concurred in the result, but dissented from the majority’s rationale as overly broad. The concurring justices insisted that a supplier reasonably relies upon its purchaser only when the purchaser has actual awareness of the product’s risks. Webb concurrence at 4. Even this stingier approach noted that one of the purpose of warnings is

“to enable the consumer or others who might come in contact with the product to choose not to expose themselves to the risks presented.”

Webb Concurrence at 3 (citing Restatement3d Torts, Products Liability, § 2, com. i, at p. 30). In many sophisticated intermediary contexts involving occupational exposures to fumes, vapors, and dusts, workers (consumers) cannot appreciate whether they might come in contact with the product such that they have actual risks unless the sophisticated intermediary measures its specific workplace exposures, given its actual engineering, administrative, and person protection controls.

Commentary

The Webb Court failed to address in any meaningful form how Special Electric could discharge a duty to warn Mr. Webb directly, when it sold blue asbestos to Johns-Manville, which then incorporated that fiber, along with other recycled asbestos into transite pipes. To this extent, the Webb decision carries forward the glib belief in efficacy of warnings, without any evidence or critical thought.

It is hard to imagine an industrial purchaser that was unaware of the special hazards of crocidolite by 1970, and yet Special Electric apparently failed to offer evidence on the issue whether Johns-Manville had such awareness. A court might take judicial notice of Johns-Manville sophistication, but there is not even the suggestion that Special Electric attempted to supplement the vacuous record with a request for judicial notice.

If the California Supreme Court’s recitation of the facts of the case is correct, then we are left with an unflattering inference about Special Electric’s trial strategy and execution. Perhaps Special Electric was coyly trying to avoid a downside outcome in which it was responsible for 99.99% of the verdict because its blue asbestos was by far the most important cause of Mr. Webb’s tragic disease, a disease that would have almost certainly been avoided had never had exposure to blue asbestos. The propensity of crocidolite to cause mesothelioma is orders of magnitude greater than chrysotile, which by itself may not even be a competent cause of the harm suffered by Mr. Webb.

In the final analysis, the Webb Court correctly adopted the sophisticated intermediary principle as an essential limit to tort liability, but denied its benefit to Special Electric. The sophisticated intermediary doctrine should not, however, be conceived of as an affirmative defense. The scope of the rule is defined by the rationale for its existence, and the sophisticated intermediary situation lies outside the realm and rationale of protecting, by warning, consumers against latent hazards. It is time that courts recognize that much litigation brought to its doors is really the result of labor-management issues within the workplace, and not the doings or responsibility of remote suppliers of raw materials.

[1] See, e.g, MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) (holding that privity of contract did not bar suit and that product manufacturers could be liable to consumers for injuries); Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (1960); Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal. 2d 453, 150 P. 2d 436 (1944).

[2] See Steven Sellers, “California Ruling Defines Asbestos Supplier’s Duty to Warn,” BNA Product Safety & Liability Reporter (May 24, 2016).

[3] The majority opinion was written by Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan, and joined by Associate Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Goodwin Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar and Leondra R. Kruger.

[4] See also Webb at 2 (“Under the sophisticated intermediary doctrine, the supplier can discharge this duty if it conveys adequate warnings to the material’s purchaser, or sells to a sufficiently sophisticated purchaser, and reasonably relies on the purchaser to convey adequate warnings to others, including those who encounter the material in a finished product. Reasonable reliance depends on many circumstances, including the degree of risk posed by the material, the likelihood the purchaser will convey warnings, and the feasibility of directly warning end users.”); Webb at 6 (“[T]he sophisticated intermediary doctrine provides that a supplier can discharge its duty to warn if it provides adequate warnings, or sells to a sufficiently sophisticated buyer, and reasonably relies on the buyer to warn end users about the harm.”). Webb at 17 (“If a purchaser is so knowledgeable about a product that it should already be aware of the product’s particular dangers, the seller is not required to give actual warnings telling the buyer what it already knows.”).

[5] See Webb at 15 (“The drafters intended this comment to be substantively the same as section 388, comment n, of the Restatement Second of Torts.”) (citing Restatement 3d Torts, Products Liability, § 2, com. i, reporter’s note 5, at p. 96; Humble Sand & Gravel Inc. v. Gomez, 146 S.W.3d 170, 190 (Tex. 2004). See also Webb at 9 (citing Restatement 2d Torts, § 388 (b), com. k, at pp. 306-307) (“Courts have interpreted section 388, subdivision (b), to mean that if the manufacturer reasonably believes the user will know or should know about a given product’s risk”).

[6] Relevant considerations may include the general dissemination of knowledge of relevant risks, the intermediary’s knowledge of those risks, and the intermediary’s reputation for care. Webb at 20.

[7] Webb at 3, 23.

[8] See Webb at 17-18 (disapproving of the holding in Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp., 190 Cal. App. 4th 23, 29-30 (2010)).

[9] See also Webb at 12 (quoting from Restatement 3d Torts, Products Liability, § 5, com. c, at p. 134) (“Inappropriate decisions regarding the use of such materials are not attributable to the supplier of the raw materials but rather to the fabricator that puts them to improper use.”).

[10] citing approvingly Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 151 F.3d 297, 334 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that raw asbestos supplier did not need to warn asbestos product manufacturer Fibreboard, which was “a sophisticated, expert, and knowledgeable manufacturer” of insulation products, about asbestos risks); Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 671 F. Supp. 1055, 1061-1062 (D. Md. 1987) (exculpating supplier when purchaser was a highly sophisticated manufacturer with knowledge from independent sources, as well as its suppliers), aff’d, 863 F.2d 1162 (4th Cir. 1988).

Posted in Asbestos, Silica, Sophisticated User | Comments Off on The Webb of Unsophistication in Products Liability Law

Putting the Liability Spotlight on Employers

November 30th, 2015

In 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that employers could be directly liable to employees for injuries that become manifest outside the time limits (300 weeks) of the Commonwealth’s workman’s compensation statute. Tooey v. AK Steel Corp., 81 A.3d 851 (Pa. 2013). The implications for so-called long latency, toxic tort claims were obvious, and the generated some commentary. See “Pennsylvania Workers Regain Their Right of Action in Tort against Employers for Latent Occupational Diseases” (Feb. 14, 2014); “The Erosion of Employer Immunity in Tort Litigation” (Jan. 20, 2015).

The Legal Intelligencer has now reported the first “cashing in” or “cashing out” on the change in Pennsylvania law. Plaintiff’s lawyer, Benjamin Shein, took an employer to trial on claims that the employer was responsible for alleged asbestos exposure that caused John F. Busbey to develop mesothelioma. Bobbie R. Bailey of Leader & Berkon, in Los Angeles, defended. The case was tried before Philadelphia Judge Lisette Shirdan-Harris and a jury. After a three week trial, on November 10, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, against the employer defendant, in the amount of 1.7 million dollars. Busbey v. ESAB Group, Phila. Court of Common Pleas, No. 120503046. Max Mitchell, “Employer Found Liable In Asbestos Verdict: Busbey v. ESAB Group $1.7 Million Verdict,” The Legal Intelligencer (Dec. 1, 2015).

For witnesses, Shein called frequent litigation-industry testifiers, Dr. Steven Markowitz on occupational disease, and Dr. Daniel Dupont, a local pulmonary physician. Shein also called one of the pink panther historians, Gerald Markowitz. See “Narratives & Historians for Hire” (Dec. 15, 2010). The employer defendant called an industrial hygienist, Delno D. Malzahn.

According Ben Shein, the verdict represented the first trial win in Pennsylvania for an asbestos claim against an employer, since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Tooey in 2013. From the Legal Intelligencer’s account, and the line-up of litigation industry witnesses, the plaintiff’s trial evidence on exposure and standard of care seems shaky, and the winner may not be discernible until the appellate review is concluded.

In Illinois, an intermediate appellate court held out the prospect of a legal change similar to Tooey. In 2014, the Illinois Court of Appeals held that workman compensation petitioners, whose claims fell outside the Illinois statute were not barred by the exclusive remedy provisions that gave employers immunity from civil suit. Folta v. Ferro Engineering, 2014 IL App (1st) 123219. See Patrick W. Stufflebeam, “Folta v. Ferro Engineering: A Shift in Illinois Workers’ Compensation Protection for Illinois Employers in Asbestos Cases,” News & Press: IDC Quarterly (Mar. 11, 2015).

The Illinois Supreme Court allowed an appeal, as well as extensive amicus briefings from the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the Illinois AFL-CIO, the Illinois Self-Insurers’ Association, the Illinois Defense Trial Counsel, a joint brief from insurers,[1] and a joint brief from various manufacturing companies.[2]

Earlier this month, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed and held that even though claims fell outside the Illinois workman’s compensation statute, those claims were still barred by the Act’s exclusive remedy provisions that gave employers immunity from civil suit. Folta v. Ferro Engineering, 2015 IL 118070 (November 4, 2015).

[1] the American Insurance Association, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, and the Travelers Indemnity Company.

[2] Caterpillar Inc., Aurora Pump Company, Innophos, Inc., Rockwell Automation, Inc., United States Steel Corporation, F.H. Leinweber Company, Inc., Driv-Lok, Inc., Ford Motor Company, and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation.

Posted in Asbestos, Historian Testimony, Learned and sophisticated intermediary, Sophisticated User | Comments Off on Putting the Liability Spotlight on Employers