TORTINI

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

Archives »

Ferebee Revisited

December 28th, 2017

The following post was originally published on November 8, 2012, but was hacked, no doubt by the lawsuit industry, and replaced with mindless fluff as is its wont. It is now restored.

Ferebee Revisited

I used to think of the infamous Ferebee decision as the Dred Scott decision of scientific evidence; in essence, declaring that science has no validity issues that the law is bound to respect. Ferebee v. Chevron Chem. Co., 552 F. Supp. 1297 (D.D.C. 1982), aff’d, 736 F.2d 1529 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1062 (1984). The rhetoric on expert witnesses, from the district and circuit courts in this case is sometimes jarring, but the facts of the case make the holding, rather than the expansive dicta, not so unreasonable, under all the facts and circumstances of the case.

On rereading Ferebee, I was struck by several aspects of the case that rarely are discussed when Ferebee is cited. On sober second thought, Ferebee may not be such a bad decision, especially considering that it has no continuing validity as a rule of decision for expert witness admissibility in federal court.

1. Ferebee is a government negligence case.

The plaintiff worked for the federal government when he was exposed to the herbicide paraquat. Richard Ferebee began working for the Department of Agriculture’s Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), in Beltsville, Maryland. He started spraying paraquat in the summer of 1977, and used the herbicide regularly through the time he was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis, in November 1979. 736 F.2d at 1531-32. Ferebee brought a failure to warn claim against the supplier of paraquat, Chevron Chemical Company. The allegations of actual or constructive knowledge of a hazard, however, could just as readily be asserted against the federal government, which owned the BARC facility, employed Ferebee, controlled and supervised his use of paraquat, and failed to comply with Chevron’s instructions. The federal government further regulated the sale and use of paraquat extensively, first by the Department of Agriculture, and later by the Environmental Protection Agency. Id. at 1532.

2. The exposure.

Ferebee filed suit in 1981, he died in 1982. His case was tried twice. In the first trial, the jury deadlocked; in the second trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of his estate, and for his family, for $60,000. In his deposition testimony, Ferebee described how sprayed paraquat, in the summer of 1977. The chemical was diluted for use, per Chevron’s instructions. There was no evidence that Ferebee ever had direct contact with undiluted paraquat, or that the paraquat he was exposed to was not diluted according to the proportions recommended on Chevron’s label. 552 F. Supp. at 1295 & n. 3. Ferebee frequently got the chemical on his hands. 552 F. Supp. at 1294-95. Ferebee further described an occasion when he was drenched with paraquat when he walked behind a tractor that was spraying the chemical, and another incident when he used a defective sprayer that leaked paraquat “all over his pants.” 736 F.2d at 1532. On both occasions, Ferebee did not wash, and apparently went home contaminated, where he fell asleep, tired and dizzy, without showering. Id. As we will see, the exposure that Ferebee described would not have occurred had his federal employer followed the instructions on the label that it mandated. In 1978, the federal Occupational Health & Safety Administration published Guidelines on the need for protective clothing, respirators, immediate washing of contaminated skin, etc. Ferebee’s federal employer recklessly disregarded its own guidelines.

3. The warnings.

Paraquat could be sold in the United States only when labeled in accordance with EPA regulations, promulgated pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 136, et seq. (FIFRA) The statute bars EPA from allowing sale of regulated herbicides, such as paraquat, unless the chemicals, as labeled, will not cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(C). Such effects are in turn defined as any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of [the] pesticide. 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb). FIFRA further requires the EPA to require labeling that is “adequate to protect health and the environment” and that is “likely to be read and understood.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1)(E). 736 F.2d at 1539-40.

Unfortunately, the courts failed to provide the complete warning label and the material data safety sheets. There are “snippets” provided, which make clear that the federal government was largely to blame for failing to comply with the directions required under FIFRA. For instance, the district court, in a footnote, acknowledged:

“For example, the label advised the user spraying paraquat to wear waterproof clothing and goggles, to avoid working in spray mist, and to wash splashes on the skin or eyes immediately with water.”

552. F. Supp. at 1304 n.40. The Court of Appeals reported that “the label, in large bold letters states:

DANGER

CAN KILL IF SWALLOWED

HARMFUL TO THE EYES AND SKIN

736 F.2d at 1536. The label also informed users to wash any exposed areas immediately, and to remove contaminated clothing. Id.

4. The Stipulation.

A key fact, rarely described or explained in discussions of the Ferebee case, is the parties’ stipulation

“that Mr. Ferebee’s only significant exposure to paraquat was on his intact skin; i.e., there was no evidence that Mr. Ferebee swallowed or inhaled paraquat, or that he spilled or sprayed it on an area of his skin upon which he had any apparent cuts or scrapes. The jury was not, of course, precluded from concluding that a person engaged in Mr. Ferebee’s line of work could have had some, or even many, minor cuts or abrasions not readily discernible to the naked eye or likely to be remembered some time later.”

552. F. Supp. at 1295 & n. 3.

Why did the plaintiffs try to present their case solely as a dermal exposure cases? As we will see, this stratagem made their medical causation case more difficult, but it avoided serious misuse and lack of proximate cause issues. Ferebee had been instructed by his co-workers and supervisors that paraquat was extremely dangerous if swallowed, and probably also if inhaled. The warning label was unequivocal in detailing the dangers and the need to avoid ingestion. (Without the full label, it is difficult to evaluate how well the label warned against inhalation, but the 1978 OSHA guidelines address the use of a proper respirator for situations in which paraquat may be inhaled.) On the other hand, the label had a weakness, which could be exploited, as long as the preemption defense could be held at bay: the label urged protective clothing, goggles, and immediate washing of contaminated skin, but it failed to describe the consequence of dermal exposure other than irritation. Ferebee could thus avoid his culpable conduct, as well as a sophisticated intermediary defense, by claiming that his exposure was only dermal.

Why did Chevron agree to the stipulation? The defendant probably felt sanguine about its preemption defense, and thus also about the adequacy of its warnings overall. The stipulation limited the plaintiff’s medical causation case to a route of exposure that put it into an arguable “first instance” case report. Chevron stood to gain a claim of “lack of notice,” and thus lack of actual or constructive knowledge of the risk of lung disease from dilute dermal exposure. The clinical presentation itself differed from many of the cases of known paraquat poisoning, see infra, and Chevron probably believed that it could deal with the medical causation claim better if exposure was limited to transdermal absorption. Curiously, Chevron did not argue that Ferebee must have had some inhalational exposure, which he almost certainly did. I suspect that Chevron’s position on inhalation was hedged because its warning label did not specify respirator usage for ordinary work exposures of applicators (as opposed to workers who handled undiluted paraquat, worked in confined spaces, etc.).

5. Medical causation

Chevron took a strident position, standing on the fact that there had been no previous documented cases of pulmonary fibrosis in workers exposed to diluted paraquat through their skin. The following facts were uncontroverted:

  • Paraquat causes pulmonary fibrosis in humans.
  • The evidence that established paraquat as a cause of pulmonary fibrosis was largely case series of acute onset of pulmonary fibrosis after ingestion.
  • Paraquat induces pulmonary fibrosis relatively rapidly.
  • Paraquat can be absorbed through the skin.
  • The parties agreed that any type of exposure – ingestion, inhalation, or dermal absorption – could cause lung damage. 552. F. Supp. at 1300 & n.28.
  • Once paraquat is ingested, inhaled, or absorbed, it can travel to the lungs.
  • Lung fibrosis caused by dermal absorption of paraquat had been described previously only with skin lesions before or after the injury. 736 F.2d at 1538.
  • The lungs are the target organ for paraquat.
  • There are numerous causes of pulmonary fibrosis (such as asbestosis, scleroderma, rheumatoid arthritis, etc.).
  • The variants of pulmonary fibrosis do not all look alike, present alike, or progress alike.
  • Mr. Ferebee had no known other disease or exposure that could account for his pulmonary fibrosis.
  • There is are cases of pulmonary fibrosis with no identifiable cause, known as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).
  • IPF is relatively rare; it too has a rapid onset and progression, although not as fast as the cases described after exposure to undiluted paraquat.
  • Mr. Ferebee’s medical history was largely unhelpful in explaining his clinical course.
  • Ferebee had some shortness of breath before starting to use paraquat. 552. F. Supp. at 1295.
  • Ferebee used paraquat occasionally over three years before he was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis.

Some observations about these facts. General causation in a sense was not contested. Paraquat causes pulmonary fibrosis. The issue was whether dilute dermal exposure over three years causes pulmonary fibrosis. Chevron stridently asserted that the “scientific method” required controlled experimental or observational (epidemiologic) studies. The problem with Chevron’s position was that general causation had already been established, and not by analytical epidemiologic studies.

6. The expert witnesses.

Ferebee was initially treated by Dr. Muhammed Yusuf, a pulmonary specialist, who diagnosed pulmonary fibrosis. Dr. Yusef referred Ferebee to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where he came under the care of Dr. Ronald G. Crystal of the Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (Dr. Crystal is now at Cornell-Weill, where he is Chairman of Genetic Medicine, and he practices pulmonary medicine.)

Chevron called Dr. Carrington, who diagnosed Ferebee with IPF. Dr. Carrington challenged the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ opinions for lacking reliance upon controlled observational or experimental studies. 552. F. Supp. at 1301. Dr. Carrington, however, acknowledged that dermal cases are too rare for observational epidemiologic analysis, but emphasized that no animal studies of sufficient size had been done to support plaintiffs’ hypothesis. Chevron also called a Dr. Fisher, who presented a toxicokinetic (TK) analysis of Ferebee’s dermal absorption. Based upon his TK analysis, Dr. Fisher concluded that the maximal amount of paraquat absorbed by Ferebee was too small, based upon known cases and animal studies, to have caused paraquat toxicity. Id.

7. Chevron’s challenge to plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ causation opinion.

None of the defendant’s expert witnesses examined Ferebee. The courts thought this was relevant, but they never articulated what would have been observed on physical examination that was important to resolving the differential diagnosis of paraquat toxicity versus IPF. There was no dispute that Ferebee had rapidly progressing pulmonary fibrosis. The expert witnesses on both sides evaluated Ferebee’s clinical data, presentation, clinical course, and arrived at different diagnoses. The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ diagnosis, however, involved a causal attribution to paraquat exposure.

The Ferebee case was litigated under Maryland law because federal statutory law requires state law to control in a wrongful death action arising out of the neglect or wrongful act of another on a federal enclave. 16 U.S.C. § 457. 736 F.2d at 1533. (Maryland law is actually favorable to a sophisticated intermediary defense, although the key decisions post-date Ferebee.) Chevron appears to have relied upon Maryland’s articulation of the Frye general acceptance doctrine, and the courts analyzed Chevron’s arguments as a Frye challenge. 552 F. Supp. at 1301; 736 F.2d at 1535. Although the use of Maryland law to determine an evidentiary issue seems suspect, Chevron pressed apparently pressed its challenge in terms of Maryland’s version of Frye, and not based upon Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The infamous language used by both the district and the circuit courts was, therefore, not an interpretation of federal law. Rule 702 was never cited or discussed in either the trial or the appellate court’s opinion.

My re-reading of Ferebee has softened my criticisms of state courts that had relied upon the case, even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert. Softened but not eliminated my criticism — Ferebee is still a case largely confined to its facts, and the language quoted as a standard of admissibility is really a statement of the appellate standard of review for the jury’s determination of medical causation.

8. The judicial resolution of Chevron’s Frye challenge

The district court insightfully recognized that Chevron was demanding a level of evidence, which had never been required to establish paraquat’s generally accepted ability to cause pulmonary fibrosis. This recognition led to the district court’s colorful language:

“It is true that medical expert testimony must be grounded in proper scientific methodology, but the extremely stringent standard that defendant suggests is beyond reason. Product liability law, especially as it relates to relatively new products or those with a relatively rare yet significant danger, would be rendered next to meaningless if a plaintiff could prove he was injured by a product only after a ‘statistically significant’ number of other people were also injured. A civilized legal system does not require that much human sacrifice before it can intervene. The fact that this is the first case of this exact type-or at least the first of its exact type in which the involvement of paraquat was discovered by alert doctors — cannot be enough by itself to shield defendant from liability. Defendant’s experts were not able to fault Dr. Crystal for his basic diagnostic methodology; in fact, they used the same kinds of test results, consultations, and other tools that he did. What they disagreed with chiefly were his conclusions.”

552 F. Supp. at 1301. The important observation is that general causation had been established case series and reports of human exposure. There never was statistical evidence that had been evaluated for “significance,” to establish general causation for undiluted paraquat, and the trial court refused, under Maryland law, to require such evidence for general causation for diluted paraquat. In this context, we can see that the trial court’s suggestion that statistical significance was not required has little bearing upon, cases in which general causation could only be established using epidemiologic evidence, with its attendant statistical inferences.

Of course, the matter only became worse when Chevron persisted in its argument and presented it to a liberal panel of the D.C. Circuit. (Judge Mikva wrote the opinion for a panel that included Judge Wald, and Senior Judge Bazelon.) The panel’s decision ratcheted up the rhetoric:

“Thus, a cause-effect relationship need not be clearly established by animal or epidemiological studies before a doctor can testify that, in his opinion, such a relationship exists. As long as the basic methodology employed to reach such a conclusion is sound, such as use of tissue samples, standard tests, and patient examination, product liability does not preclude recovery until a ‘statistically significant’ number of people have been injured or until science has had the time and resources to complete sophisticated laboratory studies of the chemical. In a courtroom, the test for allowing a plaintiff to recover is not scientific certainty, but legal sufficiency; if reasonable jurors could conclude from the expert testimony that paraquat more likely than not caused Ferebee’s injury, the fact that another jury might reach the opposite conclusion or that science would require more evidence before conclusively considering the causation question resolved is irrelevant. That Ferebee’s case may have been the first of its exact type, or that his doctors may have been the first alert enough to recognize such a case, does not mean that the testimony of those doctors, who are concededly well qualified in their fields, should not have been admitted.”

736 F.2d at 1535-36 (emphasis in original).

Again, the dismissive attitude towards statistically significant evidence is limited to the context of a causal analysis that had been made, to everyone’s satisfaction, for undiluted paraquat, without the need for epidemiologic, statistical evidence. Statistical significance was never at issue. In this way, Ferebee resembles the untoward language on statistical significance from Matrixx Initiatives Inc. v. Siracusano. In both cases, statistical significance was never really at issue. In Ferebee, there was no statistical evidence needed or used to reach causal conclusions about paraquat’s ability to induce pulmonary fibrosis. In Matrixx Initiatives, allegations of statistical significance and causation were not necessary because the plaintiffs needed only to allege materiality of the facts suppressed by the company in order to plead a securities fraud case. Materiality could be established without causation, and thus neither causation nor statistical significance needed to be alleged.

As for Chevron’s Frye challenge, the district court rejected the implied call for a vote on the general acceptance of Dr. Crystal’s reasoning. Frye may require “vote counting” of some sort, but the process becomes irrelevant when virtually no one has registered to vote. Otherwise, the defense and the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses appeared to be using the same technique of arguing by analogy to accepted cases of paraquat poisoning or IPF. Dr. Crystal opined that Ferebee’s case was “similar” to three other cases he had identified. Dr. Carrington argued that Ferebee’s case was more like IPF cases, although IPF cases themselves have some clinical heterogeneity as well. Paraquat cases described onset to death as a very rapid process. Ferebee did not present with significant symptoms for three years after his first exposure, and then he survived for another two plus years. Ferebee did not report skin lesions, which had been reported in previous cases of dermal exposure leading up to pulmonary fibrosis. The case presented, on the diagnostic level, a difficult call, but it is easy to see the courts’ impatience with the defendant’s insistence upon more stringent criteria and evidence than was used to establish the causal connection with undiluted paraquat.

9. Expert witness qualifications.

Chevron never challenged Dr. Yusuf’s or Dr. Crystal’s qualifications. The oft-quoted comments about expert witness qualifications were made in the context of describing the appellate court’s standard of review, and the court’s role in not assessing credibility or weighing the evidence:

“These admonitions apply with special force in the context of the present action, in which an admittedly dangerous chemical is alleged through long-term exposure to have caused disease. Judges, both trial and appellate, have no special competence to resolve the complex and refractory causal issues raised by the attempt to link low-level exposure to toxic chemicals with human disease. On questions such as these, which stand at the frontier of current medical and epidemiological inquiry, if experts are willing to testify that such a link exists, it is for the jury to decide whether to credit such testimony.”

736 F.2d at 1534.

This procedural posture is obviously very different from the initial determination of admissibility. As far as credentials are concerned, Drs. Yusuf and Crystal were hardly “hired guns”; both physicians were well qualified. Dr. Crystal had outstanding qualifications, and Chevron wisely never challenged them. Remarkably, this language has been mistakenly invoked as a standard for trial courts to use in determining the admissibility of expert witness opinion testimony. It is no such thing.

10. Preemption and Warnings Causation.

Ultimately, Chevron’s preemption defense was rejected by both the district and the circuit court. FIFRA preemption has had its ups and downs; no surprise there. More interesting is the emphasis that both courts gave to the important role of the employer in the case. The evidence overwhelming showed that Ferebee had never read the warning label, and thus the element of proximate causation between allegedly inadequate warning and harm was in jeopardy of going unproved. The courts, however, emphasized the role that the employer, through its supervisors and responsible co-workers, play in the complex organizational situation of a modern workplace:

“Mr. Ferebee’s situation was quite different, however. He did not purchase paraquat for his personal use; rather, it was provided to him by his employer for use on the job. The evidence showed that his principal source of information about paraquat was the oral instructions of his supervisors and co-workers, not the written label. He learned from them how to mix the product and how to spray it. It was also from this source that he learned of the danger of getting the product in his mouth: one of his co-workers warned him that if he accidently swallowed paraquat, it would ‘get in his blood’ and poison him. This is a common pattern of instruction and use of occupational materials in the workplace. Learning by doing and learning by oral instruction are tried and true methods of educating manual workers in their jobs. Therefore, although it is crucial to plaintiff’s case that someone would have read the label, it was not necessary for Mr. Ferebee to have done so. And it is obvious that one or more employees at BARC did read the label, since information did reach Mr. Ferebee about the proportions for diluting the product and about the dangers about which the label did warn. It was appropriate for the jury to infer that a warning about the danger of fatal lung disease from dermal exposure would also have been communicated to Mr. Ferebee. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 comment n (seller normally entitled to assume that adequate warning will be passed on by purchaser to ultimate user); cf. Chambers v. G.D. Searle & Co., 441 F.Supp. at 381 (in product liability case involving prescription drug, relevant warning is the one given to doctor, not patient).”

552 F. Supp. at 1303-04 (internal citations omitted). So here we have Ferebee, the subject of so much derision and aspersion from defense counsel, embracing the Section 388, comment n, as well as applying learned intermediary principles to a case not involving prescription drugs. The appellate court was waxed enthusiastic about the principles of Section 388, and went so far as to cite Victor Schwartz in support:

“We live in an organizational society in which traditional common-law limitations on an actor’s duty must give way to the realities of society. *** In this case, Mr. Ferebee did not purchase the paraquat for his personal use, and there was substantial evidence that workplace communication about the dangers associated with various chemicals usually took the form of oral instructions from supervisors to workers, the latter of whom then retransmitted the information to co-workers. This, rather than individual reading of product warnings, is a typical method by which information is disseminated in the modern workplace. See Schwartz & Driver, “Warnings in the Workplace: The Need for a Synthesis of Law and Communication Theory,” 52 U. Cinn. L. Rev. 38, 66-83 (1983). The requirement that an improper warning proximately ‘cause’ the injury should be elaborated against this background. We believe Maryland would construe its tort law in this case to require only that someone in the workplace have read the label, not that Mr. Ferebee personally have read it. Because there is no dispute that one or more employees at BARC did read the label, we hold that the jury could properly have inferred that, had a warning about the danger of disease from dermal exposure been included on the label, that warning would have been communicated to Mr. Ferebee and that he would as a result have acted differently. Alternatively, the jury could have inferred that an adequate warning would have led Ferebee’s employers to undertake steps that would have protected him from paraquat poisoning-for example, provision of showers for use after spraying.”

736 F.2d at 1539 (emphasis in original; internal citation omitted). Judge Mikva’s prediction, of course, was absolutely accurate; Maryland tort law did, soon thereafter, embrace the sophisticated intermediary defense to exculpate the defendant in such remote supplier situations. See, e.g., Kennedy v. Mobay Corp., 84 Md. App. 397 (1990) (applying sophisticated user defense to bar claims against manufacturers of toluene diisocyanate), aff’d, 325 Md. 385 (1992); Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc., 671 F. Supp. 1055 (D. Md. 1987) (Maryland law; holding that manufacturer of paint was in better position than bulk supplier to communicate warnings to customers’ employees), aff’d, 863 F.2d 1162 (4th Cir. 1988). The principle invoked to excuse plaintiff from reading the warning label also works to exculpate the defendant when that warning label is otherwise adequate, or when the intermediary knows of the hazard in any event.

Posted in Causation, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence, statistical evidence | Comments Off on Ferebee Revisited

Gatekeeping of Expert Witnesses Needs a Bair Hug

December 20th, 2017

For every Rule 702 (“Daubert”) success story, there are multiple gatekeeping failures. See David E. Bernstein, “The Misbegotten Judicial Resistance to the Daubert Revolution,” 89 Notre Dame L. Rev. 27 (2013).1 Exemplars of inadequate expert witness gatekeeping in state or federal court abound, and overwhelm the bar. The only solace one might find is that the abuse-of-discretion appellate standard of review keeps the bad decisions from precedentially outlawing the good ones.

Judge Joan Ericksen recently provided another Berenstain Bears’ example of how not to keep the expert witness gate, in litigation claims that the Bair Hugger forced air warming devices (“Bair Huggers”) cause infections. In re Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming, MDL No. 15-2666, 2017 WL 6397721 (D. Minn. Dec. 13, 2017). Although Her Honor properly cited and quoted Rule 702 (2000), a new standard is announced in a bold heading:

“Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Court need only exclude expert testimony that is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury.”

Id. at *1. This new standard thus permits largely unsupported opinion that can offer bad assistance to the jury. As Judge Ericksen demonstrates, this new standard, which has no warrant in the statutory text of Rule 702 or its advisory committee notes, allows expert witnesses to rely upon studies that have serious internal and external validity flaws.

Jonathan Samet, a specialist in pulmonary medicine, not infectious disease or statistics, is one of the plaintiffs’ principal expert witnesses. Samet relies in large measure upon an observational study2, which purports to find an increased odds ratio for use of the Bair Hugger among infection cases in one particular hospital. The defense epidemiologist, Jonathan B. Borak, criticized the McGovern observational study on several grounds, including that the study was highly confounded by the presence of other known infection risks. Id. at *6. Judge Ericksen characterized Borak’s opinion as an assertion that the McGovern study was an “insufficient basis” for the plaintiffs’ claims. A fair reading of even Judge Ericksen’s précis of Borak’s proffered testimony requires the conclusion that Borak’s opinion was that the McGovern study was invalid because of data collection errors and confounding. Id.

Judge Ericksen’s judicial assessment, taken from the disagreement between Samet and Borak, is that there are issues with the McGovern study, which go to “weight of the evidence.” This finding obscures, however, that there were strong challenges to the internal and external validity of the study. Drawing causal inferences from an invalid observational study is a methodological issue, not a weight-of-the-evidence problem for the jury to resolve. This MDL opinion never addresses the Rule 703 issue, whether an epidemiologic expert would reasonably rely upon such a confounded study.

The defense proffered the opinion of Theodore R. Holford, who criticized Dr. Samet for drawing causal inferences from the McGovern observational study. Holford, a professor of biostatistics at Yale University’s School of Public Health, analyzed the raw data behind the McGovern study. Id. at *8. The plaintiffs challenged Holford’s opinions on the ground that he relied on data in “non-final” form, from a temporally expanded dataset. Even more intriguingly, given that the plaintiffs did not present a statistician expert witness, plaintiffs argued that Holford’s opinions should be excluded because

(1) he insufficiently justified his use of a statistical test, and

(2) he “emphasizes statistical significance more than he would in his professional work.”

Id.

The MDL court dismissed the plaintiffs’ challenge on the mistaken conclusion that the alleged “contradictions between Holford’s practice and his testimony impugn his credibility at most.” If there were truly such a deviation from the statistical standard of care, the issue is methodological, not a credibility issue of whether Holford was telling the truth. And as for the alleged over-emphasis on statistical significance, the MDL court again falls back to the glib conclusions that the allegation goes to the weight, not the admissibility of expert witness opinion testimony, and that plaintiffs can elicit testimony from Dr Samet as to how and why Professor Holford over-emphasized statistical significance. Id. Inquiring minds, at the bar, and in the academy, are left with no information about what the real issues are in the case.

Generally, both sides’ challenges to expert witnesses were denied.3 The real losers, however, were the scientific and medical communities, bench, bar, and general public. The MDL court glibly and incorrectly treated methodological issues as “credibility” issues, confused sufficiency with validity, and banished methodological failures to consideration by the trier of fact for “weight.” Confounding was mistreated as simply a debating point between the parties’ expert witnesses. The reader of Judge Ericksen’s opinion never learns what statistical test was used by Professor Holford, what justification was needed but allegedly absent for the test, why the justification was contested, and what other test was alleged by plaintiffs to have been a “better” statistical test. As for the emphasis given statistical significance, the reader is left in the dark about exactly what that emphasis was, and how it led to Holford’s conclusions and opinions, and what the proper emphasis should have been.

Eventually appellate review of the Bair Hugger MDL decision must turn on whether the district court abused its discretion. Although appellate courts give trial judges discretion to resolve Rule 702 issues, the appellate courts cannot reach reasoned decisions when the inferior courts fail to give even a cursory description of what the issues were, and how and why they were resolved as they were.

2 P. D. McGovern, M. Albrecht, K. G. Belani, C. Nachtsheim, P. F. Partington, I. Carluke, and M. R. Reed, “Forced-Air Warming and Ultra-Clean Ventilation Do Not Mix: An Investigation of Theatre Ventilation, Patient Warming and Joint Replacement Infection in Orthopaedics,” 93 J. Bone Joint 1537 (2011). The article as published contains no disclosures of potential or actual conflicts of interest. A persistent rumor has it that the investigators were funded by a commercial rival to the manufacturer of the Bair Hugger at issue in Judge Ericksen’s MDL. See generally, Melissa D. Kellam, Loraine S. Dieckmann, and Paul N. Austin, “Forced-Air Warming Devices and the Risk of Surgical Site Infections,” 98 Ass’n periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN) J. 354 (2013).

3 A challenge to plaintiffs’ expert witness Yadin David was sustained to the extent he sought to offer opinions about the defendant’s state of mind. Id. at *5.

Posted in Causation, Conflicts of Interest, Data Sharing, Rule 702, Rule 703, Scientific Evidence, Underlying Data | Comments Off on Gatekeeping of Expert Witnesses Needs a Bair Hug

Stuck in Silicone

December 12th, 2017

There was a time when silicone chemistry, biocompatibility, toxicity, and litigation weighed upon my mind. What started with a flurry of scientific interest, led to a media free for all, then FDA Commissioner David Kessler’s moratorium on silicone breast implants, and then to a feeding frenzy for the lawsuit industry. Ultimately, the federal court system found its way to engage four non-party expert witnesses, who cut through the thousands of irrelevant documents that plaintiffs’ counsel used to obfuscate the lack of causation evidence. The court-appointed experts in MDL 926 were unanimous in their rejection of the plaintiffs’ claims.1 Not long after, the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine) issued its voluminous review of the scientific evidence, again with the conclusion that the evidence, when viewed scientifically and critically, showed a lack of association between silicone and autoimmune disease.2

Along the way to this definitive end of the lawsuit industry’s assault on the medical device industry, the parties assembled in the courtroom of the Hon. Jack B. Weinstein, for Rule 702 hearings on the opinions proffered by the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. Judge Weinstein, along with the late Judge Harold Baer, of the Southern District of New York, and Justice Lobis, of the New York Supreme Court, held hearings that lasted two weeks, and entertained virtually unlimited argument. In characteristic style, Judge Weinstein did not grant the defendants’ Rule 702 motions; rather he cut right to the heart of the matter, and granted summary judgment in favor of the defense on plaintiffs’ claims of systemic diseases.3

Over a dozen years later, in reflecting upon a long judicial career that involved many so-called mass torts, Judge Weinstein described the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses more plainly as “charlatans” and the silicone litigation as largely based upon fraud.4

****************************

Last week, I received an email from Arthur E. Brawer, who represented himself to be an Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine.5 Dr. Brawer kindly forwarded some of his publications on the subject of silicone toxicity.6 Along with the holiday gift, Dr Brawer also gave me a piece of his mind:

“I recommend you rethink your prior opinions on the intersection of science and the law as it relates to this issue, as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about regarding the matter of silicone gel-filled breast implants. Perhaps refresher courses in biochemistry and biophysics at a major university might wake you up.”

Wow, that woke me up! Who was this Dr Brawer? His name seemed vaguely familiar. I thought he might have been a lawsuit industry expert witness I encountered in the silicone litigation, but none of his articles had a disclosure of having been a retained expert witness. Perhaps that was a mere oversight on his part. Still, I went to my archives, where I found the same Dr Brawer engaged in testifying for plaintiffs all around the country. In one early testimonial adventure, Brawer described how he came up with his list of signs and symptoms to use to define “silicone toxicity”:

Q. Doctor, if a patient presented to you with green hair and claimed that her green hair was attributable to her silicone breast implants, unless you could find another explanation for that green hair, you’d put that on your list of signs and symptoms; right?

A. The answer is yes.

Notes of Testimony of Arthur E. Brawer, at 465:7-12, in Merlin v. 3M Co., No. CV-N-95-696-HDM (D. Nev.Dec. 11, 1995) (Transcript of Rule 702 hearing)

A year later, Brawer’s opinions were unceremoniously excluded in a case set for trial in Dallas, Texas.7 Surely this outcome, along with Judge Weinstein’s rulings, the findings of the court-appointed witnesses in MDL 926, and the conclusions of the Institute of Medicine would have discouraged this Brawer fellow from testifying ever again?

Apparently not. Brawer, like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, still lives and breathes, but only to be cut again and again. A quick Westlaw search turned up another, recent Brawer testimonial misadventure in Laux v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC, case no. 2:16-cv-01026, 2017 WL 5235619 (C.D. Calif., Nov. 8, 2017).8 Plaintiff Anita Laux claimed that she developed debilitating “biotoxin” disease from her saline-filled silicone breast implants. In support, she proffered the opinions of three would-be expert witnesses, a plastic surgeon (Dr Susan Kolb), a chemist (Pierre Blais), and a rheumatologist (Arthur Brawer).

Plaintiffs’ theory of biotoxin disease causation started with Blais’ claim to have found mold debris in the plaintiff’s explanted implants. The court found Blais unqualified, however, to offer an opinion on microbiology or product defects, and his opinions in the case, unreliable. Id. at *4-6. Dr Kolb, the author of The Naked Truth about Breast Implants, attempted to build upon Blais’ opinions, a rather weak foundation, to construct a “differential diagnosis.” In reasoning that Ms. Laux’s medical complaints arose from a mold infection, Kolb asserted that she had ruled out all other sources of exposure to mold. Unfortunately, Kolb either forgot or chose to hide correspondence with Ms. Laux, in which the plaintiff directly provided Kolb with information about prior environmental mold exposure on multiple occasions. Id. at *3. The trial court severely deprecated Kolb’s rather selective and false use of facts used to make the attribution of Ms. Laux’s claimed medical problems.

Dr Brawer, the author of Holistic Harmony: A Guide To Choosing A Competent Alternative Medicine Provider (1999), and my recent email correspondent, also succumbed to Judge Wright’s gatekeeping in Laux. The court found that Brawer had given a toxicology opinion with no supporting data. His report was thus both procedurally deficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, and substantively deficient under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Finding Brawer’s report “so lacking of scientific principles and methods,” and thus unhelpful and unreliable, the trial court excluded his report and precluded his testimony at trial. Id. at *7.

Thankfully, the ghost of litigations past, communicating now by email, can be safely disregarded. And I do not have to dig my silicone polymer chemistry and biochemistry textbooks out of storage.

1 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 experts appointed by the late Judge Pointer all committed extensive time and expertise to evaluating the plaintiffs’ claims and the entire evidence. After delivering their reports, the court-appointed experts 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).

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

3 See In re Breast Implant Cases, 942 F. Supp. 958 (E. & S.D.N.Y. 1996) (granting summary judgment because of insufficiency of plaintiffs’ evidence, but specifically declining to rule on defendants’ Rule 702 and Rule 703 motions).

5 At the Drexel University School of Medicine, in Philadelphia, as well as the Director of Rheumatology at Monmouth Medical Center, in Long Branch, New Jersey.

6 Included among the holiday gift package was Arthur E. Brawer, “Is Silicone Breast Implant Toxicity an Extreme Form of a More Generalized Toxicity Adversely Affecting the Population as a Whole?,”1 Internat’l Ann. Med. (2017); Arthur E. Brawer, “Mechanisms of Breast Implant Toxicity: Will the Real Ringmaster Please Stand Up,”1 Internat’l Ann. Med. (2017); Arthur E. Brawer, “Destiny rides again: the reappearance of silicone gel-filled breast implant toxicity,” 26 Lupus 1060 (2017); Arthur E. Brawer, “Silicon and matrix macromolecules: new research opportunities for old diseases from analysis of potential mechanisms of breast implant toxicity,” 51 Medical Hypotheses 27 (1998).

7 Bailey v. Dow Corning Corp., c.a. 94-1199-A (Dallas Cty. Texas Dist. Ct., Sept. 15, 1996).

8 I later found that another blog had reviewed the Laux decision. Stephen McConnell, “C.D. Cal. Excludes Three Plaintiff Experts in Breast Implant Case,” Drug & Device Law (Nov. 16, 2017).

Posted in Causation, Conflicts of Interest, Expert Witness Hall of Shame, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence, Scientific Misconduct | Comments Off on Stuck in Silicone

Manufacturing Consent

December 2nd, 2017

David Michaels along with other “political” scientists, and the lawsuit industry, have worked assiduously over the last several decades to delegitimize discussion, debate, and controversy over scientific claims.1 Their key goals have been to attempt to disqualify manufacturing industry and any scientist with the slightest manufacturing industry contact. Their attempts to disqualify other interlocutors is, however, highly asymmetrical. If those with connections to manufacturing industry criticize studies or causal conclusions, then we hear that the criticism is corrupt. If those with connections to manufacturing industry embrace studies that show favored associations, or causal conclusions, then we hear that the embrace of advocacy positions was an “admission,” reluctantly given but “forced” by overwhelming evidence. In other words, the attempts to disqualify interlocutors are made only when the speakers articulate criticism of the claims of advocacy science.

David Zaruk has argued that the techniques used to squelch criticism of advocacy science bear an uncanny resemblance to the techniques used by fascists generally. See David Zaruk, “Ten Practices Linking Environmentalism with Fascism,” Riskmonger (Dec. 2, 2017). Although Zaruk’s argument may appear hyperbolic, there is no denying that advocacy scientists (not merely in the field of environmentalism) have used the rhetorical devices that are used by intellectual bullies everywhere. In the case of advocacy scientists, one of their key maneuvers has been to privilege advocacy scientists who speak for their favored positions, for the lawsuit industry, and for self-styled public interest groups by ignoring their potential conflicts of interest, while diminishing the substantive content of all “opposition” voices by pejoratively characterizing their opponents’ motivation as “manufacturing doubt.” Of course, the deepest irony is that before there was manufacturing doubt, there was manufacturing consent.2 The unkindest thing that can, and must be said, of the current enthusiasm for attacking dissident scientists is not that the attacks are fascist, but that they are unscientific.

The likes of David Michaels have sought to manufacture consent on various health effects issues, by selectively and asymmetrically accusing scientists of conflicts of interest, or trying to pervert the course of science. These attacks on “dissidents” assume the truth of the contested causal conclusions, and then proceed to call out the dissidents for casting doubt on the “truth” in favor of falsehood. What this mobbing of dissidents ignores is the basic normative structure of science, which requires doubt.

One of the first sociologists of science, Robert Merton, described four institutional imperatives of science: universality, communitarianism, disinterestedness, and “organized skepticism.”3 Scientists are committed to methodologies and an institutional ethos that require searching scrutiny of claims to scientific knowledge. The scientific advocates who would silence criticism with accusations of “manufacturing doubt” ignore the epistemic importance of dissent and disagreement in science. The prevalent attempts to squelch dissent as “manufacturing doubt” is thus unscientific and dangerous.4

1 See, e.g., David Michaels, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s War on Science Threatens Your Health (2008); David Michaels, “Manufactured Uncertainty: Protecting Public Health in the Age of Contested Science and Product Defense,” 1076 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 149 (2006); David Michaels, “Mercenary Epidemiology – Data Reanalysis and Reinterpretation for Sponsors with Financial Interest in the Outcome,” 16 Ann. Epidemiol. 583 (2006); David Michaels & Celeste Monforton, “Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public’s Health and Environment,” 95 Amer. J. Public Health S39 (2005); David Michaels, “Doubt is their Product,” 292 Sci. Amer. 74 (June 2005).

2 See generally Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent (1988).

3 Robert K. Merton, “The Normative Structure of Science,” in Robert K. Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, chap. 13, at 267, 270 (1973).

4 See Inmaculada de Melo-Mmartín and Kristen Intemann, “Who’s afraid of dissent? Addressing concerns about undermining scientific consensus in public policy developments,” 22 Persp. on Science 593 (2014).

Posted in Causation, Public Nuisances, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on Manufacturing Consent

Johnson & Johnson Leaves Them in the Dust – Echeverria Verdict Unraveled

October 24th, 2017

It was a tough week for the talc litigation industry. On October 17, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed a large verdict for plaintiffs because a St. Louis trial court unconstitutionally had asserted personal jurisdiction over Johnson & Johnson. In essence, the Missouri appellate court just said no to forum shopping. Fox v. Johnson & Johnson, Mo. Ct. App., No. ED104580 (Oct. 17, 2017). And on Friday, October 20, a California trial court, on sober second thought, granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and in the alternative, a new trial in the recent Escheverria case, which had resulted in plaintiffs’ awards approaching half a billion dollars. See Orders regarding Defendants Combined Motion for New Trial and Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Case No. BC628228, JCCP No. 4872, Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. (Oct. 20, 2017) [cited below as Echeverria op.] See also Daniel Siegal, “J&J Wins Battle Against $417M Talc Award, But War Not Over,” Law360 (Oct. 23, 2017).

The trial court issued an opinion, over 50 pages long, which carefully reviewed the parties’ contentions. Only some of the issues considered by the trial court are discussed below.

Differential Etiology

Differential etiology resembles the biological process of solid waste management; both employ the process of elimination.

Most diseases in humans have a large “idiopathic” or “cause unknown” component. The differential methodology purports to take all the known causes and rule out the ones that are improbable in a given case. As a matter of logic, this is what is known as an iterative disjunctive syllogism. If you start with:

A or B or C.

And you show not B;

and then, not C.

you are left with A.

This argument is, of course, a perfectly valid syllogism. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. The problem is that the initial premise, to be accurate for many if not most human chronic diseases, must include a disjunct, U, or “cause unknown.” And once U is added to the first line of the syllogism, rarely is there a way to exclude it.

Sometimes the “cause unknown” component may be very small. For instance, in human malignant mesothelioma, the overwhelming majority of occupational cases do have a known cause: amphibole asbestos. When sufficient amphibole asbestos fiber exposure has been shown, there is usually no serious issue of individual attribution left for debate. The base rate of (idiopathic) mesothelioma is very low, and the relative risk from occupational amphibole asbestos exposure is extraordinarily large.

Ovarian cancer, which is the subject of the Escheverria case, is a very different story. The rate of idiopathic cases – no known causes – is much higher, and may even make up a majority of cases. The so-called differential etiology method never gets down to a conclusion that it is the talc (assuming arguendo that talc causes ovarian cancer). You always have talc or unknown cause in the conclusion.

In Escheverria, the plaintiffs’ lawyers called only one expert witness on specific causation, Echeverria’s treating physician, Dr. Annie Yessaian (“Yessaian”). Yessaian advanced a “differential etiology” analysis, which she claimed allowed her to conclude that talc was “more probable than not” a cause of plaintiff’s ovarian cancer. Echeverria op. at 5. Upon careful review, the trial court realized that Yessaian had never properly applied the iterative disjunctive syllogism, or differential etiology, to reach a valid conclusion. Despite a good deal of hand waving, Yessaian never ruled out other causes of the plaintiff’s ovarian cancer. Echeverria op. at 30.

The plaintiff’s menarche was at age 11, and so she had had a large number of ovulatory cycles. She was obese, and over 60 years old at the time of diagnosis. Yessaian did not rule these factors out; rather she testified without foundation that these factors were “less likely than not” causes of plaintiff’s ovarian cancer1. Echeverria op. at 31. The trial court noted that these potential causes had never been eliminated from the list of differentials; Yessaian had simply “discounted” them by ipse dixit. As for the “U,” or unknown causes that are clearly at play in many if not most ovarian cancers, Yessaian admitted that Escheverria’s cancer “probably” resulted from some unknown risk factor; but then, out of thin air, she testified that the probability of idiopathic causation was less than 50%. The trial court concluded that Yessian’s ruling in and ruling out decisions were ultimately nothing more than conjecture, and the plaintiff had never properly shown specific causation. Id. at 26-27, 31.

Relative Risk Less than Two

Yessaian’s specific causation opinion cratered further as a result of her inability to identify any specific biomarker or “fingerprint” of causation. The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses had argued that chronic inflammation is the mechanism by which talc causes ovarian cancer, but there was no histopathologic evidence of inflammation in association with ovarian tissue that had given rise to the cancer.

The relative risk argument is one way to attribute specific causation, and circumvent idiopathic causes by quantifying the contribution of the specific causal factor (again assuming it really is such) vis-a-vis the baseline risk of disease from unknown causes. The plaintiff, however, had called an expert witness on epidemiology, Jack Siemiatycki, who had explained that a risk ratio of 2.0 is “the point at which the probability of causation, which is the probability that a given agent causes a specific disease, exceeds 50 percent ….” Escheverria op. at 5. The defense epidemiologic expert, Dr. Douglas Weed, similarly testified and elaborated on the concept of probability of causation and attributable risk.2

The plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to extricate themselves from this arithmetic quagmire by arguing that there was “multiple causation,” and interaction among causes. Escheverria op. at 41-42. Yessaian, however, had disavowed even the most obvious concurrent causes (ovulatory cycles and age), and put all her markers down on talc. There was no evidence of multiple causation to muck up the analysis. Of course, the talc epidemiologic studies were all multivariate analyses that measured associations of talc and ovarian cancer in the presence of co-variates, such as age at menarche, and age at diagnosis.

Furthermore, Yessian was constrained by her acknowledgement that histologic type of ovarian cancer is highly relevant, and that none of the studies of serous ovaran cancer (the type diagnosed in Ms. Escheverria) reported out risk ratios in excess of 2.0. Escheverria op. at 28-29. Yessaian could not escape the inexorable math, and testimony about probability of causation from Jack Siemiatycki. Id at 29.3

Their case in extremis, the plaintiffs’ counsel argued4 that epidemiologic studies were not needed to prove causation, which might be true in a case involving a known mechanism with highly specific biomarkers to identify the causal mechanism that had taken place in the claimant. Having cited and relied extensively upon epidemiologic studies, Yessaian was hoisted with own her petard; the trial court found the assertion that there was an alternative path to specific causation to be absent from the record and quite incredible.

State of the Art

The duty to warn is constrained by what is known or should have been known at the time of marketing, what lawyers sometimes call “state of the art.” The trial court reasoned that since Eva Echeverria developed her serous ovarian cancer in 2007, the relevant scientific state of knowledge was censored at the time of plaintiff’s diagnosis. Any warning given after 2007 could not have prevented plaintiffs’ disease. (In truth, the relevant censoring date was likely well before 2007, but an earlier date would not have made a difference in the judicial outcome.)

There was no serious claim that the defendants had “secret” knowledge other than what was known in the scientific community. Plaintiffs’ expert witness on epidemiology, Jack Siemiatycki, co-chaired the IARC working group that concluded and published in 2007, that talc was a possible cause of ovarian cancer, a finding that rejected a higher classification, such as “probable” or “known.” IARC Monograph for Carbon Black, Titanium Dioxide & Talc, vol 93 (2010); Robert Baan, et al., “Carcinogenicity of carbon black, titanium dioxide, and talc,” 7 Lancet Oncology 295 (2006)5. In Escheverria, Siemiatycki testified in accordance with his public scientific work, and his service on the IARC working group, and he conceded that in 2007, there was no known causal connection between talc and human ovarian cancer. Notably, the defense lawyers failed to convert this state-of-the-art issue into a dispositive judgment because they had failed to ask for a binding jury instruction on the issue. Escheverria op. at 32.

For the trial court, the absence of scientific knowledge up to and including 2007, the year of Escheverria’s diagnosis, was also relevant to the existence vel non of malice that would support the imposition of punitive damages. Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the trial court found that there was a scientific debate whether talc causes ovarian cancer, which debate would not allow the imputation of scienter to the defendants to permit the jury to infer that the defendants had acted with malice. Escheverria op. at 35. Given that no one in the medical or scientific community had asserted a relevant causal conclusion in or before 2007, the trial court’s conclusion is unassailable. The court’s analysis, however, begs the question why a lay jury is permitted to find any breach of a duty to warn, in the face of an engaged scientific community that uniformly refused to advance a causal conclusion in the relevant time frame.

New Trial on General and Specific Causation

The trial court did not belabor the analysis of general causation beyond pointing out that there were substantial uncertainties for many of the Bradford Hill considerations, such as consistency, strength, and exposure-response. With respect to specific causation, all the problems discussed on the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were also relevant to finding that the plaintiff failed to establish specific causation by a preponderance of the evidence. Escheverria op. at 40.

The trial court identified several grounds for the grant of a new trial, but one ground involved improper argument by plaintiffs’ counsel, who has repeatedly resorted to the same argument in previous cases. Forewarned, the defense sought a ruling in limine to exclude all evidence of lobbying and communications with federal agencies over regulations and regulatory classifications of talc. In a pretrial ruling, the trial court permitted the use of company documents about attempts to influence the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the IARC for the limited purpose of notice to defendants that scientific organizations were considering whether to label talc as a carcinogen. Escheverria op. at 45.

Perhaps the trial court was being charitable in assessing what the lobbying evidence would be used for, but the plaintiffs did not need evidence of lobbying to prove “notice.” Early, often, and deliberately, the plaintiffs’ lawyers used evidence of lobbying for purposes well beyond the permissible, limited relevancy of notice. Escheverria’s counsel, Allen Smith argued, in opening and in closing that the defendants had “fended off” the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and that “if Johnson & Johnson would have just stayed out of it, let the scientists do their work at the U.S. government, the NTP would have listed talc as a carcinogen as far back as 2000.” So lobbying activities were not used as evidence of notice at all, but rather for arguing an inference of malice and outrageous misconduct from the prevention of regulation. Escheverria op. at 46.

Predictable.

1 Yessaian did advert to a study that she interpreted as failing to establish an association between obesity and ovarian cancer, but for the other risk factors of age and ovulatory cycles, the plaintiff’s expert witness offered no basis at all.

2 The trial court studiously avoided reference to the defense expert witness on epidemiology. See “Echeverria Talc Trial – Crossexamination on Alleged Expert Witness Misconduct” (Oct. 21, 2017).

3 citing well-known relative risk of two cases, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 43 F. 3d 1311, 1321 (9th Cir. 1995); In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Prac. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 185 F. Supp. 3d 786, 791-92; Marder v. G.D. Searle & Co., 630 F. Supp. 1087, 1092 (D.Md. 1986), aff’d mem. on other grounds sub nom. Wheelahan v. G.D.Searle & Co., 814 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

4 citing the dubious In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 612 F. Supp. 2d 116, 132 (D. Mass. 2009), aff’d, 712 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013).

5 Unfortunately, even the IARC classification of “probably” carcinogenic to humans is actually fairly meaningless exercises in semantics, not science. A close reading of the IARC Preamble definition of probable reveals that probable does not mean greater than 50%: “The terms probably carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic have no quantitative significance and are used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity, with probably carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic.”

Posted in Causation, Evidence, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on Johnson & Johnson Leaves Them in the Dust – Echeverria Verdict Unraveled

Love that Hormesis to Pieces

October 12th, 2017

Hermann Joseph Muller was an American biologist who won the Nobel Prize in 1946, for Physiology or Medicine, for his work on fruit fly genetics. In his Nobel Prize speech, Muller opined that there was no threshold dose for radiation-induced mutagenesis. Muller’s speech became a locus of support for what later became known as the “linear no threshold” (LNT) theory of carcinogenesis.

Muller was an ardent eugenicist, although of the communist, not the Nazi, variety.1 After 1932, Muller’s political enthusiasms took him to the Soviet Union, where Muller blithely ignored murderous purges and famines, in order to pursue his scientific interests for the greater glory of the Proletarian Dicatorship.2 Muller became enamored of a People’s eugenics program. On May 5, 1936, Muller wrote to “Comrade Stalin,” “[a]s a scientist with confidence in the ultimate Bolshevik triumph throughout all possible spheres of human endeavor,” to offer the brutal dictator “a matter of vital importance arising out of my own science – biology, and, in particular, genetics.”3

Comrade Stalin was underwhelmed by Muller’s offer, and threw his lot in with Trofim Lysenko. A disheartened Muller managed to extricate himself from the Soviet fatherland, but not so much from its politics and ideology4. After returning to the United States, he remained active in noteworthy liberal and progressive political activities. Alas, he also seemed to remain a Communist fellow traveler, who found time to criticize only the Soviet embrace of Lysenkoism and its treatment of dissident geneticists (such as himself), with nary a mention of Ukrainian farmers, political dissidents, or the Soviet subjugation of eastern and central Europe.5

In retreating from his Soviet homeland, Muller did not abandon his eugenic vision for the United States. In 1966, Muller urged the immediate establishment of sperm banks for “outstanding men,” such as himself, to make deposits for use in artificial insemination6

**********************************

Back in a 1976, George E. P. Box outlined his notion that all models are wrong even though some may be useful7. The LNT model, as devised by Muller and embraced by regulatory agencies around the world, has long since lost its usefulness in describing and predicting biological phenomena. LNT is scientific in the sense that it is testable and falsifiable; LNT has been tested and falsified. Muller’s model ignores relevant biological processes of tolerance, defense, and adaptation8. 

The resilience of the LNT seems to be due to the advocacy of scientists and regulators who find the simplistic LNT model to be useful in ensuring regulation of, and compensation for, low-dose exposures. The perpetual machine litigation created with asbestos comes to mind. Other “political scientists” come to mind as well. Theory and data are often in tension, but at the end of any debate, scientists are obligated to “save the phenomena.” Fortunately, there are scientists who are challenging the dominance of the LNT model, and who are pointing out where the model just does not fit the data9.

In the United States, Muller’s theories were subjected to some real-world tests. In May 1947, Muller warned of the possible evolution of evil monsters born to Japanese survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on the basis of his assessment that the atomic bombs had produced countless mutants. Later that year, however, Austin Brues, director of the Argonne National Laboraty, published his findings of children born to Hiroshima survivors, who had no more mutations than baseline expectation10.

Notwithstanding the shaky evidentiary foundations of Muller’s views, his prestige as a Nobel laureate encouraged the adoption and promotion of the LNT model by the National Academy of Sciences’ Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR) I Genetics Panel. Edward J. Calabrese, a prominent toxicologist in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, has taken pains, on multiple occasions, to trace the genealogy of this error. His most recent, and most succinct effort, is a worthwhile read for policy makers, judges, and lawyers who want to understand the historical dimension of the LNT model11. A fuller bibliography is set out as an appendix to this post.

 

1 Herman Joseph Muller, Out of the Night – a Biologist’s View of the Future (1935).

2 Elof Alex Carlson, Genes, Radiation, and Society: The Life and Work of H.J. Muller (1981).

3 John Glad, “Hermann J. Muller’s 1936 Letter to Stalin,” 43 The Mankind Quarterly 305 (2003).

4 See, e.g., Peter J. Kuznick, Beyond the Laboratory: Scientists as Political Activists in 1930’s America 121 (1987).

5 Hermann J. Muller, “The Crushing of Genetics in the USSR,” 4 Bull. Atomic Scientists 369 (1948). Some have attempted to protect Muller’s conduct by arguing that he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee, where he was critical of Soviet restrictions on secondary education. See Thomas D. Clark, Indiana University: Midwestern Pioneer 310 (1977). Given Muller’s privileged position to observe first hand what had happened to Ukrainian farmers and others, this coming forward on Soviet education seems feeble indeed.

6 See “Sperm Banks Urged by Nobel Laureate,” N.Y. Times (Sept. 13, 1966).

7 See George E. P. Box, “Science and Statistics,” 71 J. Am. Stat. Ass’ 791 (1976); George E. P. Box, “Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building,” in R. L. Launer & G.N. Wilkinson, Robustness in Statistics at 201–236 (1979); George E. P. Box & Norman Draper, Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces at 74 (1987) (“Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.”).

8 See, e.g., Adam D. Thomas, Gareth J. S. Jenkins, Bernd Kaina, Owen G. Bodger, Karl-Heinz Tomaszowski, Paul D. Lewis, Shareen H. Doak, and George E. Johnson, “Influence of DNA Repair on Nonlinear Dose-Responses for Mutation,” 132 Toxicol. Sci. 87 (2013).

9 See, e.g., Bill Sacks & Jeffry A. Siegel, “Preserving the Anti-Scientific Linear No-Threshold Myth: Authority, Agnosticism, Transparency, and the Standard of Care,” 15 Dose-Response: An Internat’l J. 1 (2017); Charles L. Sanders, Radiobiology and Radiation Hormesis: New Evidence and its Implications for Medicine and Society (2017).

10 William Widder, “Probe Effects of Atom Bomb: Study Betrays No Evidence of Mutations,” Greensburg Daily News (Greensburg, Indiana) at 22 (Mon, Nov. 24, 1947).

11 Edward J.Calabrese, “The Mistaken Birth and Adoption of the LNT: An Abridged Version,” 15 Dose-Response: An Internat’l J. (2017).

Appendix

Edward J.Calabrese & Linda A. Baldwin, “Chemical hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis,” 19 Human & Experimental Toxicol. 2 (2000)

Edward J. Calabrese and Linda A. Baldwin, “Hormesis: U-shaped dose responses and their centrality in toxicology,” 22 Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 285 (2001)

Edward J.Calabrese, “Hormesis: a revolution in toxicology, risk assessment and medicine: Re-framing the dose–response relationship,” 5 Eur. Mol. Bio. Org. Reports S37 (2004)

Edward J. Calabrese & Robyn Blain, “The occurrence of hormetic dose responses in the toxicological literature, the hormesis database: an overview,” 202 Toxicol. & Applied Pharmacol. 289 (2005);

Edward J. Calabrese, “Pain and U-shaped dose responses: occurrence, mechanisms and clinical Implications,” 38 Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 579 (2008)

Edward J. Calabrese, “Neuroscience and hormesis: overview and general findings,” 38 Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 249 (2008)

Edward J. Calabrese, “Linear No Threshold (LNT) – The New Homeopathy,” 31 Envt’l Toxicol. & Chem. 2723 (2012)

Edward J. Calabrese, “Muller’s Nobel Prize Lecture: When Ideology Prevailed over Science,” 126 Toxicol. Sci. 1 (2012)

Edward J. Calabrese, “How the U.S. National Academy of Sciences misled the world community on cancer risk assessment: new findings challenge historical foundations of the linear dose response, 87 Arch. Toxicol. 2063 (2013)

Edward J. Calabrese, “On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith,” 142 Envt’l Research 432 (2015)

Edward J. Calabrese, “An abuse of risk assessment: how regulatory agencies improperly adopted LNT for cancer risk assessment,” 89 Arch. Toxicol. 647 (2015)

Edward J. Calabrese, “LNTgate: How scientific misconduct by the U.S. NAS led to governments adopting LNT for cancer risk assessment,” 148 Envt’l Research 535 148 (2016)

Edward J. Calabrese, “The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1. The Russell-Muller debate,” 154 Envt’l Res. 435 (2017)

Edward J. Calabrese, “The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT,” 154 Envt’l Res. 452 (2017)

Posted in Causation, Historian Testimony, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on Love that Hormesis to Pieces

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.”).

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

Lawsuit Magic – Turning Talcum into Wampum

August 27th, 2017

Last week, a Los Angeles jury, with little prior experience in giving away other people’s money, awarded Eva Echeverria $417,000,000 dollars, in compensatory and punitive damages.1 Pundits in the media, and from both sides of the bar, including your humble blogger, jumped in to offer their speculation about the cause of profligacy.2

In speaking to one reporter, I described the evidence against Johnson & Johnson in an earlier trial (Slemp) as showing that the company needed to engage more fully with the scientific evidence, and not reduce complex evidence to sound bites. Alas, no good deed goes unpunished; my comments were reduced to sound bites! The reporter quoted me in part as having said that the case was a tough one for the defense, but left out that I thought the case was tough because the defense will have a difficult time educating judges and juries in the scientific methods and judgment needed to reach a sound conclusion. The reporter suggested that I had opined that the evidence against J & J was “compelling,” when I had suggested the evidence was confounded and biased, and that J & J needed to take greater care in addressing study validity.3

Perhaps more interesting than my speculation is the guesswork of the plaintiffs’ counsel, who has had more experience with conjecture than I will ever enjoy. In an interview with an American Law Media reporter4, Allen Smith offered his view that three “new” pieces of evidence explain the Los Angeles hyper-verdict:

1. evidence that other companies selling consumer talcum power have begun to place ovarian cancer warnings on their packaging, within the few months;

2. evidence that two persons involved in the Cosmetic Industry Review, which has concluded that talcum powder is safe, had received payments from Johnson & Johnson for speaking engagements; and

3. evidence that Douglas Weed, a former National Cancer Institute epidemiologist, who testified for Johnson & Johnson as an expert witness in the Echeverria case, had been sanctioned in another, non-talc case in North Carolina, for lying under oath about whether he had notes to his expert report in that other case.

Smith claimed that the new evidence was “very compelling,” especially the evidence that Johnson & Johnson had presented “unbelievable and non-credible witnesses on an issue so important like this.”

Now, Smith was trial counsel. He was intimately involved in presenting the evidence, and in watching the jurors’ reactions. Nonetheless, I am skeptical that these three “bits” explain the jury’s extravagance.

The first “bit” seems completely irrelevant. The fact of another company’s having warned within months of the trial, and years after the plaintiff was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, suggests that the evidence was inflammatory without having any probative value. Feasibility of warning was not an issue. State of the art was an issue. In the Slemp trial, Graham Colditz testified that he had had his epiphany that talc causes ovarian cancer only two years ago, when he was instructed by plaintiffs’ counsel to formulate an opinion on the causal claim. That another company recently placed a warning to ward off the lawsuit industry is hardly evidence of industry or governmental standard. All that can really be said is that some companies have been bullied or scared into warnings by the Lawsuit Industry, in the hopes of avoiding litigation. Indeed, it is not at all clear how this bit of irrelevancy was admitted into evidence. All in all, this evidence of a recent warning, years after the plaintiff’s use of the defendant’s talcum powder seems quite out of bounds.

The second bit was simply more of the same inflammatory, scurrilous attacks on Johnson & Johnson. Having watched much of the Slemp trial, I can say that this was Allen Smith’s stock in trade. From media reports, he seemed to have succeeded in injecting his personal attacks on the most peripheral of issues into the Echeverria trial. Not everything in Slemp was collateral attack, but a lot was, and much of it was embarrassing to the legal system for having tolerated it.

The third bit of evidence about Dr. Weed’s having been sanctioned was news to me. A search on Westlaw and Google Scholar failed to find the sanctions order referred to by plaintiffs’ counsel. If anyone is familiar with the North Carolina case that gave rise to the alleged court sanction, please send me a copy or a citation.

1 Daniel Siegal, “J&J Hit With $417M Verdict In 1st Calif. Talc Cancer Trial,” Law360 (Aug. 21, 2017). The case was Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson, case no. BC628228, Los Angeles Cty. Superior Court, California.

2 See Daniel Siegal, “Science No Salve For J&J In Talc Cases, $417M Verdict Shows,” Law360, Los Angeles (Aug. 22, 2017). See also Margaret Cronin Fisk & and Edvard Pettersson, “J&J Loses $417 Million Talc Verdict in First California Case,” Bloomberg News (Aug. 21, 2017).

3 Tina Bellon, “Massive California verdict expands J&J’s talc battlefield,” Reuters (Aug. 22, 2017); Tina Bellon, “Massive California verdict expands J&J’s talc battlefield,” CNBC (Aug. 22, 2017); Tina Bellon, “J&J’s talc woes expand with massive California verdict,” BNN Reuters (Aug. 22, 2017).

4 Amanda Bronstad, “New Evidence Seen as Key in LA Jury’s $417M Talc Verdict,” Law.com (Aug. 22, 2017).

Posted in Causation, Expert Witnesses, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on Lawsuit Magic – Turning Talcum into Wampum

Weight of the Evidence in Science and in Law

July 29th, 2017

“woe to that man by whom the offense cometh”

         Matthew 18:7

Weight of the evidence (WOE) has cropped up again in recent trial and appellate court proceedings involving the admissibility of scientific expert witness opinion testimony. With some consistency, the WOE approach advocated is vacuous. The proponents of WOE do not specify what type of evidence is considered, whether all evidence was considered, or how competing and conflicting evidence was weighed.

Interpreted sympathetically, WOE might be taken to mean that “scientific judgment” was exercised with respect to causal inference, without describing exactly what was done. Although sympathetic, this interpretation renders the purported methodology meaningless. WOE-ful scientists might just as well say that they used scientific method. Not surprisingly, WOE is absent from virtually all major epidemiology textbooks

Despite the vacuity of WOE, or because of it, some lawyers, who constitute the lawsuit industry, are particularly fond of WOE.1 Expert witnesses who support the lawsuit industry have defended their “right” to inflict WOE on the litigation system, tooth and nail.2

Carl Cranor, a philosophy professor and a hired expert witness in litigation for plaintiffs’ counsel, has written about WOE and attempted to defend WOE as a scientific methodology. Cranor has caricaturized criticisms of WOE, including mine, by suggesting that the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s use of WOE rebuts my suggestion that WOE is no method at all.3 Cranor’s defense fails, however, because IARC’s method, for all its deficiencies, never invokes a method mired in WOE.

Perhaps the Lawsuit Industry likes WOE as much as it likes the equally vague term, “link.” WOE frees them from the requirement of any meaningful methodology, which means that any conclusion is possible. Under WOE, any conclusion can survive gatekeeping as an opinion. WOE frees the putative expert witness from the need to consider the quality of research. WOE-ful authors such as Carl Cranor invoke WOE or seek to inflict WOE without mentioning the crucial “nuts and bolts” of scientific inference, such as concepts of

  • Internal and external validity
  • Assessment of random error
  • Assessment of known and residual confounding
  • Known and potential threats to validity in
  • Appropriate methods of systematic review
  • Appropriate synthesis across studies, such as systematic review and meta-analysis

These important concepts are lost in the miasma of WOE.

In the published scientific literature, it is a commonplace that WOE is either poorly or not defined and specified. The phrase is vague and ambiguous; its use, inconsistent.4  Even authors sympathetic to the WOE mission have reluctantly concluded that the term is most often used in a way that “does not lend itself to transparency or repeatability except in simple cases.”5

Another reason that WOE resonates so strongly with the Lawsuit Industry is that having expert witnesses proclaim WOE as their methodology permits trial counsel to claim that the proffered opinions are immune to gatekeeping because, after all, weight-of-the-evidence questions are for the jury. Lawyers learn early on about WOE factual issues in appellate review of a wide variety of evidentiary and sufficiency issues in criminal and civil cases.6 Unless against the great WOE, WOE questions are for the jury.

Even venerable judges fall for this semantic confusion. In 1995, the Second Circuit, before the major revision of Rule 702, in 2000, noted that in discharging their gatekeeping role, trial judges do not assume:

“‘the role of St. Peter at the gates of heaven, performing a searching inquiry into the depth of an expert witness’s soul’ that would ‘inexorably lead to evaluating witness credibility and weight of the evidence, the ageless role of the jury’.”

McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co., 61 F.3d 1038, 1045 (2d Cir.1995) (internal citations omitted).

Of course, the expert witness’s soul is not at issue, but his methodology is. More important, however, note how the appellate court adverted to “weight of the evidence” as something that the jury must evaluate, along with witness credibility. The expert witness WOE litigation strategy deliberately trades upon the confusion between WOE in the allocation between judge and jury, and valid scientific methodology in causal inference. McCullock is proof that judges can be, and are, bamboozled by the litigation strategy.

Twenty years after McCullock, federal appellate judges are still falling for the deliberate confusion between legal and scientific WOE. The Ninth Circuit recently held that the reliability test of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 is:

“‘is not the correctness of the expert’s conclusions but the soundness of his methodology’, and when an expert meets the threshold established by Rule 702, the expert may testify and the fact finder decides how much weight to give that testimony. Challenges that go to the weight of the evidence are within the province of a fact finder, not a trial court judge. A district court should not make credibility determinations that are reserved for the jury.”

City of Pomona v. SQM North America Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1044 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 870 (2014). Characterizing a methodological dispute as one that “merely” concerns the “weight of the evidence” is a strategy to remove the dispute from judicial gatekeeping altogether.

Recently, the Third Circuit displayed this confusion of WOE with methodological impropriety by mischaracterizing failure to correct for multiple testing as merely an improper calculation that ordinarily goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 849 F.3d 61, 83 (3d Cir. 2017).

The Third Circuit, in Karlo, cited to a Supreme Court case that predated Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and which did involve any Rule 702 challenge to the use of a flawed statistical analysis. In Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400 (1986), plaintiffs sued as a class for employment discrimination, and sought to show the discrimination through the use of a regression analysis. The defense challenged the plaintiffs’ regression on grounds that key variables were omitted. The Court rejected a sufficiency challenge to a finding of discrimination in plaintiffs’ class action, and noted:

“Normally, failure to include variables will affect the analysis’ probativeness, not its admissibility.”

The lesson of the last two decades of judicial gatekeeping is that methodological infirmity will affect both probitiveness and admissibility7. Courts cannot escape their important gatekeeping duties by shifting their responsibility to juries under the guise of WOE.

2 See Schachtman, “Desultory Thoughts on Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products,” (Oct. 2015).

3 Carl F. Cranor, Toxic Torts: Science, Law, and the Possibility of Justice 146 (2d ed. 2016) (citing and selectively quoting from Schachtman, “WOE-fully Inadequate Methodology – An Ipse Dixit By Another Name” (May 1, 2012)).

4 See Charles Menzie, Miranda Hope Henning, Jerome Cura, Kenneth Finkelstein, Jack Gentile, James Maughan, David Mitchell, Stephen Petron, Bonnie Potocki, Susan Svirsky & Patti Tyler, “A weight-of-evidence approach for evaluating ecological risks; report of the Massachusetts Weight-of-Evidence Work Group,” 2 Human Ecological Risk Assessment 277, 279 (1996) (“although the term ‘weight of evidence’ is used frequently in ecological risk assessment, there is no consensus on its definition or how it should be applied”); Sheldon Krimsky, “The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law,” 95 Am. J. Pub. Health S129 (2005) (“However, the term [WOE] is applied quite liberally in the regulatory literature, the methodology behind it is rarely explicated.”); V. H. Dale, G.R. Biddinger, M.C. Newman, J.T. Oris, G.W. Suter II, T. Thompson, et al., “Enhancing the ecological risk assessment process,” 4 Integrated Envt’l Assess. Management 306 (2008) (“An approach to interpreting lines of evidence and weight of evidence is critically needed for complex assessments, and it would be useful to develop case studies and/or standards of practice for interpreting lines of evidence.”);  Douglas L. Weed, “Weight of Evidence: A Review of Concept and Methods,” 25 Risk Analysis 1545 (2005) (noting the “lack of definition of the term weight of evidence, multiple uses of the term and a lack of consensus about its meaning, and the many different kinds of weights, both qualitative and quantitative which can be used in risk assessment”); R.G. Stahl Jr., “Issues addressed and unaddressed in EPA’s ecological risk guidelines,” 17 Risk Policy Report 35 (1998) (noting that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s guidelines for ecological weight-of-evidence approaches to risk assessment fail to provide guidance); Glenn W. Suter, Susan M. Cormier, “Why and how to combine evidence in environmental assessments:  Weighing evidence and building cases,” 409 Sci. Total Env’t 1406, 1406 (2011) (noting arbitrariness and subjectivity of WOE “methodology”).

5 See Igor Linkov, Drew Loney, Susan Cormier, F. Kyle Satterstrom, and Todd Bridges, “Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: review of qualitative and quantitative approaches,” 407 Sci. Total Env’t 5199, 5203 (2009).

6 See, e.g., People v. Collier, 146 A.D.3d 1146, 1147-48, 2017 NY Slip Op 00342 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep’t, Jan. 19, 2017) (rejecting appeal based upon defendant’s claim that conviction was against “weight of the evidence”); Venson v. Altamirano, 749 F.3d 641, 656 (7th Cir. 2014) (noting “new trial is appropriate if the jury’s verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence”).

7 David L. Faigman, Christopher Slobogin & John Monahan, “Gatekeeping Science: Using the Structure of Scientific Research to Distinguish Between Admissibility and Weight in Expert Testimony,” 110 Northwestern L. Rev. 859, 865 (2016) (“An expert economist in an employment discrimination case who admittedly fails to control for a key variable such as seniority or wage structure in a regression analysis has committed a general error that should lead to exclusion by a judge… .”).

Posted in Causation, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on Weight of the Evidence in Science and in Law

Slemp Trial Part 5 – Daniel W. Cramer

July 24th, 2017

The case of talc and ovarian cancer is a difficult and close case on general causation. Although I do not believe that the plaintiffs have made their case, their causal claims do not have the usual earmarks of “junk science,” so readily visible in many other litigations, such as the Zoloft birth defects cases.

Dr. Daniel Cramer is a physician and an epidemiology. He holds the title of professor of epidemiology at the Harvard University Chan School Of Public Health, as well as a professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, at the Harvard Medical School. The plaintiffs called Cramer to testify on causation issues.

Cramer could have been purely duplicative as a witness, but he was used primarily on specific causation with a big boost on general causation because of his many publications on talc and ovarian cancer (a subject generally missing from Graham Colditz’s C.V.). The planned testimony for Cramer was to try to present the causal attribution of Slemp’s tumor to talc, with the understanding that since specific implied general causation, the plaintiff would obtain corroborating testimony on general causation as well.

With respect to Slemp’s known risk factors, such as her massive obesity and heavy smoking history, Cramer attempted to quantify her ex ante risks based upon her medical chart and from using risk ratios from available epidemiologic studies. Predictably, Cramer tried to diminish these ex ante risks by a highly selective reading of Slemp’s charts, but he ably deflected cross-examination criticisms by characterizing questions as quibbles and volunteering that he was not trying to ascribe plaintiff’s ovarian cancer exclusively to talc. Similarly, Cramer attempted to present the highest ex ante risk ratio for Slemp’s talc exposure, through his characterizations of her case as involving bilateral tumors and other features. Cramer tried to diminish the risk factor of obesity by claiming that fat women use talc more and that there was “synergy” between obesity and talc use. Cramer never described the evidentiary basis for this claimed synergy, or whether it was multiplicative or something less dramatic.

Interestingly, risk ratios from groups (epidemiologic studies) were used to describe her individual risks. The defense did not actively challenge this procedure. The premise of Cramer’s approach was that if an individual patient had a previous exposure or lifestyle variable that has been causally associated with ovarian cancer, then those exposures and lifestyle variables all participating in actually causing the patient’s cancer. As noted in the summary of Graham Colditz’s testimony, this assumption by Cramer is disputed. Cramer never attempted to justify the assumption by reference to any body of scientific evidence, or text. For Mrs. Slemp, Cramer opined that talc (as well as obesity and smoking) caused her serous borderline ovarian tumors. This conclusion was driven by his assumption that if Slemp had an exposure to a known cause of ovarian cancer, then it must have played a “substantial” role in causing the cancer.

Cross-Examination

The defense vigorously challenged Cramer for having failed to discuss causation in his publications. Most of these publications were epidemiologic studies, which did not necessarily provide an opportunity for full-ranging discussions of causal conclusions. Cramer effectively parried by noting that causation is not established by a single study, and single-study reports were not an appropriate vehicle for a full review and analysis of causation. As for his reviews and opinion pieces, Cramer defended his failure to state a clear causal conclusion on grounds that he had urged warning labels for personal talc products, and that a causal conclusion was not needed to justify such a warning because even a potential risk of ovarian cancer outweighed the negligible benefit of using talc in personal hygiene.

The defense plowed on with its claim that many studies lacked statistical significance, but Cramer generally lost defense counsel in technical details. For Cramer’s estimation of Slemp’s ex ante risk ratio from talc exposure, the defense challenged Cramer’s use of a one-tailed test of significance1. Cramer offered a half-hearted defense of a one-sided test in this context, and used the questions as an opportunity to repeat how low the p-value was with respect to the general association between talc and ovarian cancer. Cramer muddied the water by claiming that this calculation was superseded by further refinement of his estimate, which took into account the bilaterality of Slemp’s tumors, which obviated his one-sided confidence interval calculation. Although the details were not entirely forthcoming, the jury would not likely have seen this exchange as anything other than a quibble. The defense’s claim that Cramer had violated the “rules of epidemiology” never got off the ground, and given that the defense never presented an epidemiologist, the claim of counsel never was grounded in actual evidence.

Counterfactual Causation

The most important cross-examination of Dr. Cramer came from both J & J’s and Imerys’ counsel on the issue of counterfactual causation. Defense counsel asked Cramer, in several different ways, whether Ms. Slemp would have avoided having ovarian cancer if she had not used talc. Cramer stridently and belligerently refused to answer the question. The trial judge showed no interest in obtaining an answer to these questions. In the last effort to obtain a response from Cramer on “but for” causation, Cramer simply refused:

“I am not going to opine on the topic because it is not the task I was charged with.”

In other words, plaintiffs’ counsel and Cramer had discussed his inability to answer the counterfactual question, and decided it was simply better not respond to the question altogether. Since Mr. Smith, plaintiffs’ counsel, did not “task” him with counterfactual causation, Cramer was not going to answer it. Cramer’s intransigence was remarkable because the counterfactual question is an important component to causal inference in epidemiologic science. See, e.g., Michael Höfler, “Causal inference based on counterfactuals,” 5 BMC Med. Research Methodology 28 (2005).

In law, as in science, the counterfactual questions put to Cramer, are essential. Conduct or a product cannot be a legal cause of harm unless that cause alone, or acting in concert with other causes, was enough to result in the injury. Although legal treatises speak of “substantial factor,” the American Law Institute (ALI) defined that phrase (outside the context of overdetermined effects) negatively to make clear that “the actor’s negligent conduct is not a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another if the harm would have been sustained even if the actor had not been negligent.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 432 (1965).

Given the mischief generated by some courts and commentators2 with respect to “substantial factor,” the ALI abandoned the phrase altogether in its most recent Restatement of the law of torts. In the current Restatement, the ALI has emphasized that the imposition of liability require that the harm claimed is one that would not have occurred in the absence of (“but for”) the defendant’s negligent conduct. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical and Emotional Harm § 26 cmt. J (2010); see also June v. Union Carbide Corp., 577 F.3d 1234, 1244 (10th Cir. 2009) (no material difference between Second and Third Restatements; holding that ‘‘a defendant cannot be liable to the plaintiff unless its conduct is either (a) a but-for cause of the plaintiff’s injury or (b) a necessary component of a causal set that (probably) would have caused the injury in the absence of other causes.’’).

Dr. Cramer’s refusal to answer the key counterfactual question about talc and Ms. Slemp’s ovarian cancer points to a lawlessness, both scientific and legal, in the proceedings in St. Louis, Missouri.

1 See “FAQ: What are the differences between one-tailed and two-tailed tests?” Institute for Digital Research and Education.

2 See David A. Fischer, “Insufficient Causes,” 94 Kent. L. J. 277, 277 (2005-06) (criticizing judicial obtuseness in misinterpreting the earlier Restatement’s use of “substantial factor”).

Posted in Causation, Risk and Risk Factor | Comments Off on Slemp Trial Part 5 – Daniel W. Cramer

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »