TORTINI

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

Archives »

Science Journalism – UnDark Noir

February 23rd, 2020

Critics of the National Association of Scholars’ conference on Fixing Science pointed readers to an article in Undark, an on-line popular science site for lay audiences, and they touted the site for its science journalism. My review of the particular article left me unimpressed and suspicious of Undark’s darker side. When I saw that the site featured an article on the history of the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision, I decided to give the site another try. For one thing, I am sympathetic to the task science journalists take on: it is important and difficult. In many ways, lawyers must commit to perform the same task. Sadly, most journalists and lawyers, with some notable exceptions, lack the scientific acumen and English communication skills to meet the needs of this task.

The Undark article that caught my attention was a history of the Daubert decision and the Bendectin litigation that gave rise to the Supreme Court case.[1] The author, Peter Andrey Smith, is a freelance reporter, who often covers science issues. In his Undark piece, Smith covered some of the oft-told history of the Daubert case, which has been told before, better and in more detail in many legal sources. Smith gets some credit for giving the correct pronunciation of the plaintiff’s name – “DAW-burt,” and for recounting how both sides declared victory after the Supreme Court’s ruling. The explanation Smith gives of the opinion by Associate Justice Harry Blackmun is reasonably accurate, and he correctly notes that a partial dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist complained that the majority’s decision would have trial judges become “amateur scientists.” Nowhere in the article will you find, however, the counter to the dissent: an honest assessment of the institutional and individual competence of juries to decide complex scientific issues.

The author’s biases eventually, however, become obvious. He recounts his interviews with Jason Daubert and his mother, Joyce Daubert. He earnestly reports how Joyce Daubert remembered having taken Bendectin during her pregnancy with Jason, and in the moment of that recall, “she felt she’d finally identified the teratogen that harmed Jason.” Really? Is that how teratogens are identified? Might it have been useful and relevant for a scientific journalist to explain that there are four million live births every year in the United States and that 3% of children born each year have major congenital malformations? And that most malformations have no known cause? Smith ingenuously relays that Jason Daubert had genetic testing, but omits that genetic testing in the early 1990s was fairly primitive and limited. In any event, how were any expert witnesses supposed to rule out base-line risk of birth defects, especially given weak to non-existent epidemiologic support for the Daubert’s claims? Smith does answer these questions; he does not even acknowledge the questions.

Smith later quotes Joyce Daubert as describing the litigation she signed up for as “the hill I’ll die on. You only go to war when you think you can win.” Without comment or analysis, Smith gives Joyce Daubert an opportunity to rant against the “injustice” of how her lawsuit turned out. Smith tells us that the Dauberts found the “legal system remains profoundly disillusioning.” Joyce Daubert told Smith that “it makes me feel stupid that I was so naïve to think that, after we’d invested so much in the case, that we would get justice.”  When called for jury duty, she introduces herself as

“I’m Daubert of Daubert versus Merrell Dow … ; I don’t want to sit on this jury and pretend that I can pass judgment on somebody when there is no justice. Please allow me to be excused.”

But didn’t she really get all the justice she deserved? Given her zealotry, doesn’t she deserve to have her name on the decision that serves to rein in expert witnesses who outrun their scientific headlights? Smith is coy and does not say, but in presenting Mrs. Daubert’s rant, without presenting the other side, he is using his journalistic tools in a fairly blatant attempt to mislead. At this point, I begin to get the feeling that Smith is preaching to a like-minded choir over there at Undark.

The reader is not treated to any interviews with anyone from the company that made Bendectin, any of its scientists, or any of the scientists who published actual studies on whether Bendectin was associated with the particular birth defects Jason Daubert had, or for that matter, with any birth defects at all. The plaintiffs’ expert witnesses quoted and cited never published anything at all on the subject. The readers are left to their imagination about how the people who developed Bendectin felt about the litigation strategies and tactics of the lawsuit industry.

The journalistic ruse is continued with Smith’s treatment of the other actors in the Daubert passion play. Smith describes the Bendectin plaintiffs’ lawyer Barry Nace in hagiographic terms, but omits his bar disciplinary proceedings.[2] Smith tells us that Nace had an impressive background in chemistry, and quotes him in an interview in which he described the evidentiary rules on scientific witness testimony as “scientific evidence crap.”

Smith never describes the Daubert’s actual affirmative evidence in any detail, which one might expect in a sophisticated journalistic outlet. Instead, he described some of their expert witnesses, Shanna Swan, a reproductive epidemiologist, and Alan K. Done, “a former pediatrician from Wayne State University.” Smith is secretive about why Done was done in at Wayne State; and we learn nothing about the serious accusations of perjury on credentials by Done. Instead, Smith regales us with Done’s tsumish theory, which takes inconclusive bits of evidence, throws them together, and then declares causation that somehow eludes the rest of the scientific establishment.

Smith tells us that Swan was a rebuttal witness, who gave an opinion that the data did not rule out “the possibility Bendectin caused defects.” Legally and scientifically, Smith is derelict in failing to explain that the burden was on the party claiming causation, and that Swan’s efforts to manufacture doubt were beside the point. Merrell Dow did not have to rule out any possibility of causation; the plaintiffs had to establish causation. Nor does Smith delve into how Swan sought to reprise her performance in the silicone gel breast implant litigation, only to be booted by several judges as an expert witness. And then for a convincer, Smith sympathetically repeats plaintiffs’ lawyer Barry Nace’s hyperbolic claim that Bendectin manufacturer, Merrell Dow had been “financing scientific articles to get their way,” adding by way of emphasis, in his own voice:

“In some ways, here was the fake news of its time: If you lacked any compelling scientific support for your case, one way to undermine the credibility of your opponents was by calling their evidence ‘junk science’.”

Against Nace’s scatalogical Jackson Pollack approach, Smith is silent about another plaintiffs’ expert witness, William McBride, who was found guilty of scientific fraud.[3] Smith reports interviews of several well-known, well-respected evidence scholars. He dutifully report Professor Edward Cheng’s view that “the courts were right to dismiss the [Bendectin] plaintiffs’ claims.” Smith quotes Professor D. Michael Risinger that claims from both sides in Bendectin cases were exaggerated, and that the 1970s and 1980s saw an “unbridled expansion of self-anointed experts,” with “causation in toxic torts had been allowed to become extremely lax.” So a critical reader might wonder why someone like Professor Cheng, who has a doctorate in statistics, a law degree from Harvard, and teaches at Vanderbilt Law School, would vindicate the manufacturers’ position in the Bendectin litigation. Smith never attempts to reconcile his interviews of the law professors with the emotive comments of Barry Nace and Joyce Daubert.

Smith acknowledges that a reformulated version of Bendectin, known as  Diclegis, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, in 2013, for treatment of  nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Smith tells us that Joyce is not convinced the drug should be back on the market,” but really why would any reasonable person care about her view of the matter? The challenge by Nav Persaud, a Toronto physician, is cited, but Persaud’s challenge is to the claim of efficacy, not to the safety of the medication. Smith tells us that Jason Daubert “briefly mulled reopening his case when Diclegis, the updated version of Bendectin, was re-approved.” But how would the approval of Diclegis, on the strength of a full new drug application, somehow support his claim anew? And how would he “reopen” a claim that had been fully litigated in the 1990s, and well past any statute of limitations?

Is this straight reporting? I think not. It is manipulative and misleading.

Smith notes, without attribution, that some scholars condemn litigation, such as the cases involving Bendectin, as an illegitimate form of regulation of medications. In opposition, he appears to rely upon Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law for the view that because the initial pivotal clinical trials for regulatory approvals take place in limited populations, litigation “serves as a stopgap for identifying rare adverse outcomes that could crop up when several hundreds of millions of people are exposed to those products over longer periods of time.” The problem with this view is that Smith ignores the whole process of pharmacovigilance, post-registration trials, and pharmaco-epidemiologic studies conducted after the licensing of a new medication. The suggested necessity of reliance upon the litigation system as an adjunct to regulatory approval is at best misplaced and tenuous.

Smith correctly explains that the Daubert standard is still resisted in criminal cases, where it could much improve the gatekeeping of forensic expert witness opinion. But while the author gets his knickers in a knot over wrongful convictions, he seems quite indifferent to wrongful judgments in civil action.

Perhaps the one positive aspect of this journalistic account of the Daubert case was that Jason Daubert, unlike his mother, was open minded about his role in transforming the law of scientific evidence. According to Smith, Jason Daubert did not see the case as having “not ruined his life.” Indeed, Jason seemed to approve the basic principle of the Daubert case, and the subsequent legislation that refined the admissibility standard: “Good science should be all that gets into the courts.”

[1] Peter Andrey Smith, “Where Science Enters the Courtroom, the Daubert Name Looms Large: Decades ago, two parents sued a drug company over their newborn’s deformity – and changed courtroom science forever,” Undark (Feb. 17, 2020).

[2]  Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Nace, 753 S.E.2d 618, 621–22 (W. Va.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 474 (2013).

[3] Neil Genzlinger, “William McBride, Who Warned About Thalidomide, Dies at 91,” N.Y. Times (July 15, 2018); Leigh Dayton, “Thalidomide hero found guilty of scientific fraud,” New Scientist (Feb. 27, 1993); G.F. Humphrey, “Scientific fraud: the McBride case,” 32 Med. Sci. Law 199 (1992); Andrew Skolnick, “Key Witness Against Morning Sickness Drug Faces Scientific Fraud Charges,” 263 J. Am. Med. Ass’n 1468 (1990).

Posted in Causation, Evidence, Expert Witness Hall of Shame, Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence, Scientific Misconduct | Comments Off on Science Journalism – UnDark Noir

The Shmeta-Analysis in Paoli

July 11th, 2019

In the Paoli Railroad yard litigation, plaintiffs claimed injuries and increased risk of future cancers from environmental exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This massive litigation showed up before federal district judge Hon. Robert F. Kelly,[1] in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who may well have been the first judge to grapple with a litigation attempt to use meta-analysis to show a causal association.

One of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses was the late William J. Nicholson, who was a professor at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, and a colleague of Irving Selikoff. Nicholson was trained in physics, and had no professional training in epidemiology. Nonetheless, Nicholson was Selikoff’s go-to colleague for performing epidemiologic studies. After Selikoff withdrew from active testifying for plaintiffs in tort litigation, Nicholson was one of his colleagues who jumped into the fray as a surrogate advocate for Selikoff.[2]

For his opinion that PCBs were causally associated with liver cancer in humans,[3] Nicholson relied upon a report he wrote for the Ontario Ministry of Labor. [cited here as “Report”].[4] Nicholson described his report as a “study of the data of all the PCB worker epidemiological studies that had been published,” from which he concluded that there was “substantial evidence for a causal association between excess risk of death from cancer of the liver, biliary tract, and gall bladder and exposure to PCBs.”[5]

The defense challenged the admissibility of Nicholson’s meta-analysis, on several grounds. The trial court decided the challenge based upon the Downing case, which was the law in the Third Circuit, before the Supreme Court decided Daubert.[6] The Downing case allowed some opportunity for consideration of reliability and validity concerns; there is, however, disappointingly little discussion of any actual validity concerns in the courts’ opinions.

The defense challenge to Nicholson’s proffered testimony on liver cancer turned on its characterization of meta-analysis as a “novel” technique, which is generally unreliable, and its claim that Nicholson’s meta-analysis in particular was unreliable. None of the individual studies that contributed data showed any “connection” between PCBs and liver cancer; nor did any individual study conclude that there was a causal association.

Of course, the appropriate response to this situation, with no one study finding a statistically significant association, or concluding that there was a causal association, should have been “so what?” One of the reasons to do a meta-analysis is that no available study was sufficiently large to find a statistically significant association, if one were there. As for drawing conclusions of causal associations, it is not the role or place of an individual study to synthesize all the available evidence into a principled conclusion of causation.

In any event, the trial court concluded that the proffered novel technique lacked sufficient reliability, that the meta-analysis would “overwhelm, confuse, or mislead the jury,” and that the proffered meta-analysis on liver cancer was not sufficiently relevant to the facts of the case (in which no plaintiff had developed, or had died of, liver cancer). The trial court noted that the Report had not been peer-reviewed, and that it had not been accepted or relied upon by the Ontario government for any finding or policy decision. The trial court also expressed its concern that the proffered testimony along the lines of the Report would possibly confuse the jury because it appeared to be “scientific” and because Nicholson appeared to be qualified.

The Appeal

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Becker, reversed Judge Kelly’s exclusion of the Nicholson Report, in an opinion that is still sometimes cited, even though Downing is no longer good law in the Circuit or anywhere else.[7] The Court was ultimately not persuaded that the trial court had handled the exclusion of Nicholson’s Report and its meta-analysis correctly, and it remanded the case for a do-over analysis.

Judge Becker described Nicholson’s Report as a “meta-analysis,” which pooled or “combined the results of numerous epidemiologic surveys in order to achieve a larger sample size, adjusted the results for differences in testing techniques, and drew his own scientific conclusions.”[8] Through this method, Nicholson claimed to have shown that “exposure to PCBs can cause liver, gall bladder and biliary tract disorders … even though none of the individual surveys supports such a conclusion when considered in isolation.”[9]

Validity

The appellate court gave no weight to the possibility that a meta-analysis would confuse a jury, or that its “scientific nature” or Nicholson’s credentials would lead a jury to give it more weight than it deserved.[10] The Court of Appeals conceded, however, that exclusion would have been appropriate if the methodology used itself was invalid. The appellate opinion further acknowledged that the defense had offered opposition to Nicholson’s Report in which it documented his failure to include data that were inconsistent with his conclusions, and that “Nicholson had produced a scientifically invalid study.”[11]

Judge Becker’s opinion for a panel of the Third Circuit provided no details about the cherry picking. The opinion never analyzed why this charge of cherry-picking and manipulation of the dataset did not invalidate the meta-analytic method generally, or Nicholson’s method as applied. The opinion gave no suggestion that this counter-affidavit was ever answered by the plaintiffs.

Generally, Judge Becker’s opinion dodged engagement with the specific threats to validity in Nicholson’s Report, and took refuge in the indisputable fact that hundreds of meta-analyses were published annually, and that the defense expert witnesses did not question the general reliability of meta-analysis.[12] These facts undermined the defense claim that meta-analysis was novel.[13] The reality, however, was that meta-analysis was in its infancy in bio-medical research.

When it came to the specific meta-analysis at issue, the court did not discuss or analyze a single pertinent detail of the Report. Despite its lack of engagement with the specifics of the Report’s meta-analysis, the court astutely observed that prevalent errors and flaws do not mean that a particular meta-analysis is “necessarily in error.”[14] Of course, without bothering to look, the court would not know whether the proffered meta-analysis was “actually in error.”

The appellate court would have given Nicholson’s Report a “pass” if it was an application of an accepted methodology. The defense’s remedy under this condition would be to cross-examine the opinion in front of a jury. If, on the other hand, the Nicholson had altered an accepted methodology to skew its results, then the court’s gatekeeping responsibility under Downing would be invoked.

The appellate court went on to fault the trial court for failing to make sufficiently explicit findings as to whether the questioned meta-analysis was unreliable. From its perspective, the Court of Appeals saw the trial court as resolving the reliability issue upon the greater credibility of defense expert witnesses in branding the disputed meta-analysis as unreliability. Credibility determinations are for the jury, but the court left room for a challenge on reliability itself:[15]

“Assuming that Dr. Nicholson’s meta-analysis is the proper subject of Downing scrutiny, the district court’s decision is wanting, because it did not make explicit enough findings on the reliability of Dr. Nicholson’s meta-analysis to satisfy Downing. We decline to define the exact level at which a district court can exclude a technique as sufficiently unreliable. Reliability indicia vary so much from case to case that any attempt to define such a level would most likely be pointless. Downing itself lays down a flexible rule. What is not flexible under Downing is the requirement that there be a developed record and specific findings on reliability issues. Those are absent here. Thus, even if it may be possible to exclude Dr. Nicholson’s testimony under Downing, as an unreliable, skewed meta-analysis, we cannot make such a determination on the record as it now stands. Not only was there no hearing, in limine or otherwise, at which the bases for the opinions of the contesting experts could be evaluated, but the experts were also not even deposed. All of the expert evidence was based on affidavits.”

Peer Review

Understandably, the defense attacked Nicholson’s Report as not having been peer reviewed. Without any scrutiny of the scientific bona fides of the workers’ compensation agency, the appellate court acquiesced in Nicholson’s self-serving characterization of his Report as having been reviewed by “cooperating researchers” and the Panel of the Ontario Workers’ Compensation agency. Another partisan expert witness characterized Nicholson’s Report as a “balanced assessment,” and this seemed to appease the Third Circuit, which was wary of requiring peer review in the first place.[16]

Relevancy Prong

The defense had argued that Nicholson’s Report was irrelevant because no individual plaintiff claimed liver cancer.[17] The trial court largely accepted this argument, but the appellate court disagreed because of conclusory language in Nicholson’s affidavit, in which he asserted that “proof of an increased risk of liver cancer is probative of an increased risk of other forms of cancer.” The court seemed unfazed by the ipse dixit, asserted without any support. Indeed, Nicholson’s assertion was contradicted by his own Report, in which he reported that there were fewer cancers among PCB-exposed male capacitor manufacturing workers than expected,[18] and that the rate for all cancers for both men and women was lower than expected, with 132 observed and 139.40 expected.[19]

The trial court had also agreed with the defense’s suggestion that Nicholson’s report, and its conclusion of causality between PCB exposure and liver cancer, were irrelevant because the Report “could not be the basis for anyone to say with reasonable degree of scientific certainty that some particular person’s disease, not cancer of the liver, biliary tract or gall bladder, was caused by PCBs.”[20]

Analysis

It would likely have been lost on Judge Becker and his colleagues, but Nicholson presented SMRs (standardized mortality ratios) throughout his Report, and for the all cancers statistic, he gave an SMR of 95. What Nicholson clearly did in this, and in all other instances, was simply divide the observed number by the expected, and multiply by 100. This crude, simplistic calculation fails to present a standardized mortality ratio, which requires taking into account the age distribution of the exposed and the unexposed groups, and a weighting of the contribution of cases within each age stratum. Nicholson’s presentation of data was nothing short of false and misleading. And in case anyone remembers General Electric v. Joiner, Nicholson’s summary estimate of risk for lung cancer in men was below the expected rate.[21]

Nicholson’s Report was replete with many other methodological sins. He used a composite of three organs (liver, gall bladder, bile duct) without any biological rationale. His analysis combined male and female results, and still his analysis of the composite outcome was based upon only seven cases. Of those seven cases, some of the cases were not confirmed as primary liver cancer, and at least one case was confirmed as not being a primary liver cancer.[22]

Nicholson failed to standardize the analysis for the age distribution of the observed and expected cases, and he failed to present meaningful analysis of random or systematic error. When he did present p-values, he presented one-tailed values, and he made no corrections for his many comparisons from the same set of data.

Finally, and most egregiously, Nicholson’s meta-analysis was meta-analysis in name only. What he had done was simply to add “observed” and “expected” events across studies to arrive at totals, and to recalculate a bogus risk ratio, which he fraudulently called a standardized mortality ratio. Adding events across studies is not a valid meta-analysis; indeed, it is a well-known example of how to generate a Simpson’s Paradox, which can change the direction or magnitude of any association.[23]

Some may be tempted to criticize the defense for having focused its challenge on the “novelty” of Nicholson’s approach in Paoli. The problem of course was the invalidity of Nicholson’s work, but both the trial court’s exclusion of Nicholson, and the Court of Appeals’ reversal and remand of the exclusion decision, illustrate the problem in getting judges, even well-respected judges, to accept their responsibility to engage with questioned scientific evidence.

Even in Paoli, no amount of ketchup could conceal the unsavoriness of Nicholson’s scrapple analysis. When the Paoli case reached the Court Appeals again in 1994, Nicholson’s analysis was absent.[24] Apparently, the plaintiffs’ counsel had second thoughts about the whole matter. Today, under the revised Rule 702, there can be little doubt that Nicholson’s so-called meta-analysis should have been excluded.

[1]  Not to be confused with the Judge Kelly of the same district, who was unceremoniously disqualified after attending an ex parte conference with plaintiffs’ lawyers and expert witnesses, at the invitation of Dr. Irving Selikoff.

[2]  Pace Philip J. Landrigan & Myron A. Mehlman, “In Memoriam – William J. Nicholson,” 40 Am. J. Indus. Med. 231 (2001). Landrigan and Mehlman assert, without any support, that Nicholson was an epidemiologist. Their own description of his career, his undergraduate work at MIT, his doctorate in physics from the University of Washington, his employment at the Watson Laboratory, before becoming a staff member in Irving Selikoff’s department in 1969, all suggest that Nicholson brought little to no experience in epidemiology to his work on occupational and environmental exposure epidemiology.

[3]  In re Paoli RR Yard Litig., 706 F. Supp. 358, 372-73 (E.D. Pa. 1988).

[4]  William Nicholson, Report to the Workers’ Compensation Board on Occupational Exposure to PCBs and Various Cancers, for the Industrial Disease Standards Panel (ODP); IDSP Report No. 2 (Toronto, Ontario Dec. 1987).

[5]  Id. at 373.

[6]  United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir.1985)

[7]  In re Paoli RR Yard PCB Litig., 916 F.2d 829 (3d Cir. 1990), cert. denied sub nom. General Elec. Co. v. Knight, 111 S.Ct. 1584 (1991).

[8]  Id. at 845.

[9]  Id.

[10]  Id. at 841, 848.

[11]  Id. at 845.

[12]  Id. at 847-48.

[13]  See, e.g., Robert Rosenthal, Judgment studies: Design, analysis, and meta-analysis (1987); Richard J. Light & David B. Pillemer, Summing Up: the Science of Reviewing Research (1984); Thomas A. Louis, Harvey V. Fineberg & Frederick Mosteller, “Findings for Public Health from Meta-Analyses,” 6 Ann. Rev. Public Health 1 (1985); Kristan A. L’abbé, Allan S. Detsky & Keith O’Rourke, “Meta-analysis in clinical research,” 107 Ann. Intern. Med. 224 (1987).

[14]  Id. at 857.

[15]  Id. at 858/

[16]  Id. at 858.

[17]  Id. at 845.

[18]  Report, Table 16.

[19]  Report, Table 18.

[20]  In re Paoli, 916 F.2d at 847.

[21]  See General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); NAS, “How Have Important Rule 702 Holdings Held Up With Time?” (March 20, 2015).

[22]  Report, Table 22.

[23]  James A. Hanley, Gilles Thériault, Ralf Reintjes and Annette de Boer, “Simpson’s Paradox in Meta-Analysis,” 11 Epidemiology 613 (2000); H. James Norton & George Divine, “Simpson’s paradox and how to avoid it,” Significance 40 (Aug. 2015); George Udny Yule, Notes on the theory of association of attributes in Statistics, 2 Biometrika 121 (1903).

[24]  In re Paoli RR Yard Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994).

Posted in Causation, Expert Witness Hall of Shame, Medical monitoring, Meta-analysis, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on The Shmeta-Analysis in Paoli

The Contrivance Standard for Gatekeeping

March 23rd, 2019

According to Google ngram, the phrase “junk science” made its debut circa 1975, lagging junk food by about five years. See “The Rise and Rise of Junk Science” (Mar. 8, 2014). I have never much like the phrase “junk science” because it suggests that courts need only be wary of the absurd and ridiculous in their gatekeeping function. Some expert witness opinions are, in fact, serious scientific contributions, just not worthy of being advanced as scientific conclusions. Perhaps better than “junk” would be patho-epistemologic opinions, or maybe even wissenschmutz, but even these terms might obscure that the opinion that needs to be excluded derives from serious scientific, only it is not ready to be held forth as a scientific conclusion that can be colorably called knowledge.

Another formulation of my term, patho-epistemology, is the Eleventh Circuit’s lovely “Contrivance Standard.” Rink v. Cheminova, Inc., 400 F.3d 1286, 1293 & n.7 (11th Cir. 2005). In Rink, the appellate court held that the district court had acted within its discretion to exclude expert witness testimony because it had properly confined its focus to the challenged expert witness’s methodology, not his credibility:

“In evaluating the reliability of an expert’s method, however, a district court may properly consider whether the expert’s methodology has been contrived to reach a particular result. See Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146, 118 S.Ct. at 519 (affirming exclusion of testimony where the methodology was called into question because an “analytical gap” existed “between the data and the opinion proffered”); see also Elcock v. Kmart Corp., 233 F.3d 734, 748 (3d Cir. 2000) (questioning the methodology of an expert because his “novel synthesis” of two accepted methodologies allowed the expert to ”offer a subjective judgment … in the guise of a reliable expert opinion”).”

Note the resistance, however, to the Supreme Court’s mandate of gatekeeping. District courts must apply the statutes, Rule of Evidence 702 and 703. There is no legal authority for the suggestion that a district court “may properly consider wither the expert’s methodology has been contrived.” Rink, 400 F.3d at 1293 n.7 (emphasis added).

Posted in Expert Witness Hall of Shame, Rule 702 | Comments Off on The Contrivance Standard for Gatekeeping

The Expert Witness Who Put God on His Reference List

August 28th, 2018

“And you never ask questions
When God’s on your side”

                                Bob Dylan, “With God on Our Side” 1963.

Cases involving claims of personal injury have inspired some of the most dubious scientific studies in the so-called medical literature, but the flights of fancy in published papers are nothing compared with what is recorded in the annals of expert witness testimony. The weaker the medical claims, the more outlandish is the expert testimony proffered. Claims for personal injury supposedly resulting from mold exposure are no exception to the general rule. The expert witness opinion testimony in mold litigation has resulted in several commentaries1 and professional position papers,2 offered to curb the apparent excesses.

Ritchie Shoemaker, M.D., has been a regular expert witness for the mold lawsuit industry. Professional criticism has not deterred Shoemaker, although discerning courts have put the kibosh on some of Shoemaker’s testimonial adventures.3

Shoemaker cannot be everywhere, and so in conjunction with the mold lawsuit industry, Shoemaker has taken to certifying new expert witnesses. But how will Shoemaker and his protégées overcome the critical judicial reception?

Enter Divine Intervention

“Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.4”

Some say the age of prophets, burning bushes, and the like is over, but perhaps not so. Maybe God speaks to expert witnesses to fill in the voids left by missing evidence. Consider the testimony of Dr. Scott W. McMahon, who recently testified that he was Shoemaker trained, and divinely inspired:

Q. Jumping around a little bit, Doctor, how did your interest in indoor environmental quality in general, and mold in particular, how did that come about?

A. I had — in 2009, I had been asked to give a talk at a medical society at the end of October and the people who were involved in it were harassing me almost on a weekly basis asking me what the title of my talk was going to be. I had spoken to the same society the previous four years. I had no idea what I was going to speak about. I am a man of faith, I’ve been a pastor and a missionary and other things, so I prayed about it and what I heard in my head verbatim was pediatric mold exposure colon the next great epidemic question mark. That’s what I heard in my head. And so because I try to live by faith, I typed that up as an email and said this is the name of my topic. And then I said, okay, God, you have ten weeks to teach me about this, and he did. Within three, four weeks maybe five, he had connected me to Dr. Shoemaker who was the leading person in the world at that time and the discoverer of this chronic inflammatory response.

*****

I am a man of faith, I’ve been a pastor and everything. And I realized that this was a real entity.

*****

Q. And do you attribute your decision or the decision for you to start Whole World Health Care also to be a divine intervention?

A. Well, that certainly started the process but I used my brain, too. Like I said, I went and I investigated Dr. Shoemaker, I wanted to make sure that his methods were real, that he wasn’t doing, you know, some sort of voodoo medicine and I saw that he wasn’t, that his scientific practice was standard. I mean, he changes one variable at a time in tests. He tested every step of the way. And I found that his conclusions were realistic. And then, you know, over the last few years, I’ve 1 gathered my own data and I see that they confirm almost every one of his conclusions.

Q. Doctor, was there anything in your past or anything dealing with your family in terms of exposure to mold or other indoor health issues?

A. No, it was totally off my radar.

Q. *** I’m not going to go into great detail with respect to Dr. Shoemaker, but are you Shoemaker certified?

A. I am.

Deposition transcript of Dr. Scott W. McMahon, at pp.46-49, in Courcelle v. C.W. Nola Properties LLC, Orleans Parish, Louisiana No. 15-3870, Sec. 7, Div. F. (May 18, 2018).

You may be surprised that the examining lawyer did not ask about the voice in which God spoke. The examining lawyer seems to have accepted without further question that the voice was that of an adult male voice. Still did the God entity speak in English, or in tongues? Was it a deep, resonant voice like Morgan Freeman’s in Bruce Almighty (2003)? Or was it a Yiddische voice like George Burns, in Oh God (1977)? Were there bushes burning when God spoke to McMahon? Or did the toast burn darker than expected?

Some might think that McMahon was impudent if not outright blasphemous for telling God that “He” had 10 weeks in which to instruct McMahon in the nuances of how mold causes human illness. Apparently, God was not bothered by this presumptuousness and complied with McMahon, which makes McMahon a special sort of prophet.

Of course, McMahon says he used his “brain,” in addition to following God’s instructions. But really why bother? Were there evidentiary or inferential gaps filled in by the Lord? The deposition does not address this issue.

In federal court, and in many state courts, an expert witness may base opinions on facts or data that are not admissible if, and only if, expert witnesses “in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject.5”

Have other expert witnesses claimed divine inspiration for opinion testimony? A quick Pubmed search does not reveal any papers by God, or papers with God as someone’s Co-Author. It is only a matter of time, however, before a judge, some where, takes judicial notice of divinely inspired expert witness testimony.

1 See, e.g., Howard M. Weiner, Ronald E. Gots, and Robert P. Hein, “Medical Causation and Expert Testimony: Allergists at this Intersection of Medicine and Law,” 12 Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 590 (2012).

2 See, e.g., Bryan D. Hardin, Bruce J. Kelman, and Andrew Saxon, “ACOEM Evidence-Based Statement: Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment,” 45 J. Occup. & Envt’l Med. 470 (2003).

3 See, e.g., Chesson v. Montgomery Mutual Insur. Co., 434 Md. 346, 75 A.3d 932, 2013 WL 5311126 (2013) (“Dr. Shoemaker’s technique, which reflects a dearth of scientific methodology, as well as his causal theory, therefore, are not shown to be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.”); Young v. Burton, 567 F. Supp. 2d 121, 130-31 (D.D.C. 2008) (excluding Dr. Shoemaker’s theories as lacking general acceptance and reliability; listing Virginia, Florida, and Alabama as states in which courts have rejected Shoemaker’s theory).

4 Genesis 6:14 (King James translation).

5 Federal Rule of Evidence. Bases of an Expert.

Posted in Expert Witness Hall of Shame, Expert Witnesses, Public Nuisances, Rule 703, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on The Expert Witness Who Put God on His Reference List

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

Earthquake-Induced Data Loss – We’re All Shook Up

June 26th, 2015

Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky are medical journalists who publish the Retraction Watch blog. Their blog’s coverage of error, fraud, plagiarism, and other publishing disasters is often first-rate, and a valuable curative for the belief that peer review publication, as it is now practiced, ensures trustworthiness.

Yesterday, Retraction Watch posted an article on earthquake-induced data loss. Shannon Palus, “Lost your data? Blame an earthquake” (June 25, 2015). A commenter on PubPeer raised concerns about a key figure in a paper[1]. The authors acknowledged a problem, which they traced to their loss of data in an earthquake. The journal retracted the paper.

This is not the first instance of earthquake-induced loss of data.

When John O’Quinn and his colleagues in the litigation industry created the pseudo-science of silicone-induced autoimmunity, they recruited Nir Kossovsky, a pathologist at UCLA Medical Center. Although Kossovsky looked a bit like Pee-Wee Herman, he was a graduate of the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, and the U.S. Naval War College, and a consultant to the FDA. In his dress whites, Kossovsky helped O’Quinn sell his silicone immunogenicity theories to juries and judges around the country. For a while, the theories sold well.

In testifying and dodging discovery for the underlying data in his silicone studies, Kossovsky was as slick as silicone itself. Ultimately, when defense counsel subpoenaed the underlying data from Kossovsky’s silicone study, Kossovsky shrugged and replied that the Northridge Earthquake destroyed his data. Apparently coffee cups and other containers of questionable fluids spilled on his silicone data in the quake, and Kossovsky’s emergency response was to obtain garbage cans and throw out the data. For the gory details, see Gary Taubes, “Silicone in the System: Has Nir Kossovsky really shown anything about the dangers of breast implants?” Discover Magazine (Dec. 1995).

As Mr. Taubes points out, Kossovsky’s paper was rejected by several journals before being published in the Journal of Applied Biomaterials, of which Kossovsky was a member of the editorial board. The lack of data did not, however, keep Kossovsky from continuing to testify, and from trying to commercialize, along with his wife, Beth Brandegee, and his father, Ram Kossowsky[2], an ELISA-based silicone “antibody” biomarker diagnostic test, Detecsil. Although Rule 702 had been energized by the Daubert decision in 1993, many judges were still not willing to take a hard look at Kossovsky’s study, his test, or to demand the supposedly supporting data. The Food and Drug Administration, however, eventually caught up with Kossovsky, and the Detecsil marketing ceased. Lillian J. Gill, FDA Acting Director, Office of Compliance, Letter to Beth S. Brandegee, President, Structured Biologicals (SBI) Laboratories: Detecsil Silicone Sensitivity Test (July 15, 1994); see Taubes, Discover Magazine.

After defense counsel learned of the FDA’s enforcement action against Kossovsky and his company, the litigation industry lost interest in Kossovsky, and his name dropped off trial witness lists. His name also dropped off the rolls of tenured UCLA faculty, and he apparently left medicine altogether to become a business consultant. Dr. Kossovsky became “an authority on business process risk and reputational value.” Kossovsky is now the CEO and Director of Steel City Re, which specializes in strategies for maintaining and enhancing reputational value. Ironic; eh?

A review of PubMed’s entries for Nir Kossovsky shows that his run in silicone started in 1983, and ended in 1996. He testified for plaintiffs in Hopkins v. Dow Corning Corp., 33 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir.1994) (tried in 1991), and in the infamous case of Johnson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, CN 91-21770, Tx Dist. Ct., 125th Jud. Dist., Harris Cty., 1992.

A bibliography of Kossovsky silicone oeuvre is listed, below.

[1] Federico S. Rodríguez, Katterine A. Salazar, Nery A. Jara, María A García-Robles, Fernando Pérez, Luciano E. Ferrada, Fernando Martínez, and Francisco J. Nualart, “Superoxide-dependent uptake of vitamin C in human glioma cells,” 127 J. Neurochemistry 793 (2013).

[2] Father and son apparently did not agree on how to spell their last name.

Nir Kossovsky, D. Conway, Ram Kossowsky & D. Petrovich, “Novel anti-silicone surface-associated antigen antibodies (anti-SSAA(x)) may help differentiate symptomatic patients with silicone breast implants from patients with classical rheumatological disease,” 210 Curr. Topics Microbiol. Immunol. 327 (1996)

Nir Kossovsky, et al., “Preservation of surface-dependent properties of viral antigens following immobilization on particulate ceramic delivery vehicles,” 29 J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 561 (1995)

E.A. Mena, Nir Kossovsky, C. Chu, and C. Hu, “Inflammatory intermediates produced by tissues encasing silicone breast prostheses,” 8 J. Invest. Surg. 31 (1995)

Nir Kossovsky, “Can the silicone controversy be resolved with rational certainty?” 7 J. Biomater. Sci. Polymer Ed. 97 (1995)

Nir Kossovsky & C.J. Freiman, “Physicochemical and immunological basis of silicone pathophysiology,” 7 J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 101 (1995)

Nir Kossovsky, et al., “Self-reported signs and symptoms in breast implant patients with novel antibodies to silicone surface associated antigens [anti-SSAA(x)],” 6 J. Appl. Biomater. 153 (1995), and “Erratum,” 6 J. Appl. Biomater. 305 (1995)

Nir Kossovsky & J. Stassi, “A pathophysiological examination of the biophysics and bioreactivity of silicone breast implants,” 24s1 Seminars Arthritis & Rheum. 18 (1994)

Nir Kossovsky & C.J. Freiman, “Silicone breast implant pathology. Clinical data and immunologic consequences,” 118 Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 686 (1994)

Nir Kossovsky & C.J. Freiman, “Immunology of silicone breast implants,” 8 J. Biomaterials Appl. 237 (1994)

Nir Kossovsky & N. Papasian, “Mammary implants,” 3 J. Appl. Biomater. 239 (1992)

Nir Kossovsky, P. Cole, D.A. Zackson, “Giant cell myocarditis associated with silicone: An unusual case of biomaterials pathology discovered at autopsy using X-ray energy spectroscopic techniques,” 93 Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 148 (1990)

Nir Kossovsky & R.B. Snow RB, “Clinical-pathological analysis of failed central nervous system fluid shunts,” 23 J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 73 (1989)

R.B. Snow & Nir Kossovsky, “Hypersensitivity reaction associated with sterile ventriculoperitoneal shunt malfunction,” 31 Surg. Neurol. 209 (1989)

Nir Kossovsky & Ram Kossowsky, “Medical devices and biomaterials pathology: Primary data for health care technology assessment,” 4 Internat’l J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 319 (1988)

Nir Kossovsky, John P. Heggers, and M.C. Robson, “Experimental demonstration of the immunogenicity of silicone-protein complexes,” 21 J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 1125 (1987)

Nir Kossovsky, John P. Heggers, R.W. Parsons, and M.C. Robson, “Acceleration of capsule formation around silicone implants by infection in a guinea pig model,” 73 Plastic & Reconstr. Surg. 91 (1984)

John Heggers, Nir Kossovsky, et al., “Biocompatibility of silicone implants,” 11 Ann. Plastic Surg. 38 (1983)

Nir Kossovsky, John P. Heggers, et al., “Analysis of the surface morphology of recovered silicone mammary prostheses,” 71 Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 795 (1983)

Posted in Expert Witness Hall of Shame, Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence, Scientific Misconduct | Comments Off on Earthquake-Induced Data Loss – We’re All Shook Up

Gad-zooks – Expert Witness Dishonesty

October 18th, 2014

This is the first in what I hope will be a continuing series, tagged as the Expert Witness Hall of Shame.

*     *     *     *     *

Shayne Cox Gad is a toxicologist and a principal in the firm, Gad Consulting Services, in Cary, North Carolina. In 1977, Gad was awarded his doctorate in pharmacology and toxicology by the University of Texas (Austin). Some years later, Gad apparently awarded himself a Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts.

The Stolen Valor Act[1], effective in December 2006, made false representations of having received military decorations or awards a federal crime. Gad was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act, and in February 2009, he pleaded guilty to dishonesty and specious claiming prohibited by the Act.

Before and after his conviction by guilty plea, Gad testified as an expert witness in litigation. He was an expert witness for plaintiff in an Oklahoma state court case, Helton v. Allergan, Inc., in which Dr. Sharla Helton complained that Botox caused her neurologic problems and pain that prevented her from working as an obstetrician/gynecologist.

Whatever the merits of the claims about Botox, Allergan might well have resisted settling a case in which plaintiff’s claim rested upon the testimony of an expert witness, convicted for dishonesty. Trial counsel for Allergan, Vaughn Crawford, cross-examined Gad, on April 27, 2010. Vaughn’s examination went immediately to prior conviction. “Allergan unmasks anti-Botox expert” (April 28, 2010; updated Aug. 21, 2013). Vaughn sprung the impeachment:

Q You are the same Shayne Cox Gad who has been adjudged guilty by the Eastern Federal District Court in North Carolina for crimes involving false statements and dishonesty, aren’t you, sir.

A Yes, sir.

Q Yes. Specifically in February of 2009, you were adjudged guilty by that Court of falsely representing that you had been awarded military decorations and medals including the Navy cross, aren’t you, sir.

A Yes, sir.

Helton v. Allergan, Inc., Notes of Testimony by Shayne Cox Gad at 48-49 (April 27, 2010).

Crawford pressed. Not only had Gad confessed to the crime, he had made various acts of contrition in his Pre-sentencing Report, in which Gad asked that he be placed on probation rather than incarcerated. One of the representations Gad made in the Report was that he would no longer testify as an expert witness in litigation. Gad’s plea was accepted and he was placed on probation as he and his lawyer requested.

As dramatic as Crawford’s impeachment of Gad must have been, the jury shrugged it off and awarded Dr. Helton 15 million dollars, which came to 18 million with pre-judgment interest. Helton v. Allergan Inc., No. CJ-2009-2171 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma Cty.) (jury voted 10 to 2 to award actual but no punitive damages). The Oklahoma intermediate appellate court affirmed in an unpublished opinion, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to grant discretionary review. Helton v. Allergan Inc., No. 2009-2171 (Okla. Civ. App. Sept. 6, 2013); “Okla. Appeals Court Backs $15M Award In Botox Injury,” Law 360 (Sept. 10, 2013). See PR Newswire, “Botox Victim Wins $18 Million: Oklahoma Supreme Court Affirms Botulism Verdict for McGinnis Lochridge Client Against Allergan, Inc.,” (May 9, 2014) (law firm press release misleadingly claiming that the Oklahoma Supreme Court had affirmed, when in fact, the Court had declined discretionary review).

Having pled guilty in federal court, Gad would have recited the facts of his crime in court before the imposition of sentencing, as required under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Furthermore, even if Gad’s criminal defense lawyer drafted the Pre-sentencing Report, Gad was the principal responsible for his agent attorney’s representation that he, Gad, would not testify again as an expert witness.

Gad tried to resist the gist of the cross-examination by suggesting that others, not he, had made the representation. And on redirect, plaintiff’s counsel Chester elicited an apology, not to the court, or to the defendants, but to Dr. Helton, the plaintiff:

Q Would you, at least, apologize to my client for me because she hired me and I hired you.

A I do apologize for that.

Q Have you lied about anything in this case?

A No, sir.

Q You put five kids through college; is that right?

A Yes, sir.

Q You’ve had this career. Why would you do something like this?

A Well, that, of course, was discussed in a lot more detail in the documents having to do with it, but it was something that got out there 25 years ago and I thought it was put away. I did my best to expunge it from the record, and I was unsuccessful. Twenty-five years ago I was a very different person, a lot younger than I am now.

Helton v. Allergan, Inc., Notes of Testimony by Shayne Cox Gad at 141 (April 27, 2010).

The internet is, however, unforgiving and unforgetting. A curriculum vitae for Gad, labeled August 2005, states the following for military service:

“June 1970 to April 1974 (Active):

Served on riverine craft in Mekong Delta of Vietnam and as O.I.C. of Armory, Quonset Point, Rhode Island. Served on USS Intrepid (CVS-11) as special 7 weapons officer, deck division officer and as First Lieutenant. Qualified as O.D. underway on Intrepid. Made several deployments overseas – mainly to Europe and the Mediterranean. Released from active duty in the permanent grade of LT(jg). Received Silver Star, 3 Bronze Stars, 3 Purple Hearts.  * * *

Holds current (2003) top secret clearance.”

C.V. for Shayne Cox Gad, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S. (emphasis added).

The charging document against Gad, from United States v. Gad, also refutes the notion that Gad’s false statements occurred in the distant past, but rather that they were made “[o]n or about November 2004, and continuing up to and including March 29, 2007 … .” Immunity from prosecution for perjury in another case, United States v. Caputo appeared to be part of the consideration for the plea deal in U.S. v. Gad. Thus the inclusion of a representation, in the pre-sentencing report, that “[a]dditionally, Dr. Gad has agreed to no longer testify as an expert witness in the future.”

The mischief Gad created by his dishonesty was thus not limited to the Helton case. Gad’s testimony looks even more dubious in view of the Caputo case, a criminal case in which Gad testified for a federal prosecutor. In Caputo, the prosecutor informed the defendants, executives of AbTox Inc., that Gad “had committed perjury by falsely claiming military experience and decorations.” United States v. Caputo, Case No. 10-1964, 397 Fed. Appx. 216, (7th Cir. Oct. 12, 2010) (unpublished). See also “AbTox Execs Seek New Trial Over Witness ‘Perjury’ – Law360” (Sept. 16, 2010).

The Caputo defendants had been charged with lying to the FDA and selling a misbranded medical sterilization devices. United States v. Caputo, 517 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming convictions). In rebuttal, Gad testified that defendants could not reasonably have held the beliefs they claimed to have held in good faith. Because of how the issue of good faith arose, the Circuit held that Gad’s perjurious testimony was harmless error that could not support the grant of a new trial. United States v. Caputo, Case No. 10-1964, 397 Fed. Appx. 216, (7th Cir. Oct. 12, 2010).

When the government informed the defendants that Gad had committed perjury, the Caputo defendants moved for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence. The defendants went beyond Gad’s perjury disclosed by the prosecutors, and charged that Gad’s resume was a sham and that Gad had lied about other credentials as well.

According to the defendants’ motion in Caputo, Gad had misrepresented several credentials and misleadingly claimed to have had professional experience in medicine and toxicology, which experience Gad, in fact, lacked. The defendants, in Caputo, alleged other misrepresentations. Gad had testified in their case, and in the Helton case, that he had taught a course at the Duke University Medical School in the early 2000s and had lectured at the school since. Gad’s resume listed a professorship of toxicology at the College of St. Elizabeth, where he purportedly developed the school’s bachelor of science toxicology program, according to the motion. In their motion for a new trial, the AbTox executives, Caputo and Riley, provided an offer of proof that neither Duke University Medical School nor the College of St. Elizabeth had any record of Gad’s faculty status, and St. Elizabeth lacked a bachelor’s program in toxicology. Caputo and Riley also adverted to the federal prosecutors’ own earlier finding that Gad had lied about his military record during their trial.

I don’t know whether Gad testified again.  Some of Gad’s dubious views on toxicology are cited with approval by legal commentators who would dilute the scientific standard for causation[2].

“Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” The essence of the crime is specious claiming.

[1] United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 1421 (2012) (holding that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional).

[2] See Shayne C. Gad, “Model Selection and Scaling,” in Shayne C. Gad & Christopher P. Chengelis eds., Animal Models in Toxicology 813 (1992), cited by Carl F. Cranor & David A. Eastmond, “Scientific Ignorance and Reliable Patterns of Evidence in Toxic Tort Causation: Is There a Need for Liability Reform? 64 Law & Contemporary Problems 5, 27 & n.120 (2001), and by Erica Beecher-Monas, Evaluating Scientific Evidence An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process at 74 & n.63 (2007) (citing Gad’s book at page 826, for the argument that humans may be more sensitive to chemical effects than smaller species).

 

Posted in Expert Witness Hall of Shame | Comments Off on Gad-zooks – Expert Witness Dishonesty

Newer Entries »