Schachtman Law » Expert Witnesses

TORTINI

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

Coffee with Cream, Sugar & a Dash of Acrylamide

June 9th, 2018

Causal statements are made all the time without much thought of their epistemic warrant. On a day that the stock market indices fall, would-be economic pundits point to some putative cause, such as concern about wage inflation. When the stock market rises on the following day, the explanation is that investors were buoyed by corporate tax cuts, even though those tax cuts were supposedly designed to help companies increase wages. As philosophy professor Harry Frankfurt has explained:

“Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic.”¹

Of course, Frankfurt’s dictum aptly describes the situation with much of expert witness testimony in health effects litigation.

Nothing seems to stimulate speculative causal claiming as much as the potential rewards of rent-seeking litigation under Proposition 65. By popular referendum, the State of California has taken upon itself to make pronouncements about the causal effects of various foods, drugs, and exposures. The referendum became a California statute with the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. Proposition 65 and the subsequent Enforcement Act require the State of California to publish a list of chemicals it “knows” cause cancers or birth defects. California knows a lot. The list, updated annually, now includes about 800 chemicals.

When California knows that a chemical or an exposure causes cancer, the state does not necessarily know that the chemical or exposure causes cancer in human beings; nor does it necessarily know that the chemical or exposure causes cancer at the exposure level experienced by the citizens of the state. Furthermore, many exposures occur in the context of complex mixtures in which a hypothetical effect of one chemical might be offset or antagonized by another chemical in the mixture. But nonetheless, what California “knows” can hurt you if you are on the wrong side of a Prop 65 enforcement action.

What has California gotten for all its “knowledge”? Clearly, the Proposition 65 statute has created huge incentives for private citizens to sue for violations by creating private rights of action against businesses that supposedly violate the law by failing to warn about what California knows. The proof standards for “known to cause cancer” are so removed from scientific discourse that forcing monetary settlements out of California businesses has become at once a big business itself, and a twisted process that distorts the truth of health hazards and benefits. There have been occasional outcries about the abusive system created from what once was perhaps a well-intentioned reform,² but for the most part, Prop 65 has become the abnormal normal in California.

Mostly California has gotten lawsuits and a glut of warnings with no difference in cancer or birth defect rates than those observed in states less knowledgeable on such matters.³ Some of California’s cancer rates may be a bit lower than the national rates but this outcome is largely the result of lower state rates for smoking and obesity. Some birth defect rates (neural tube defects) are actually higher in California than in the country as a whole.⁴

Last year, 681 Prop 65 settlements worth $25.6 million were reported to the California attorney general’s office. Attorneys’ and expert witness fees and other litigation costs made up more than 75% of the total.⁵ The rate of return has been steady over the years. In 2011, 74 percent of Proposition 65 awards went to attorneys’ fees and costs.⁶

Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT)

For all the hoopla over CERT’s lawsuit against Starbucks,⁷ there has been little coverage of the actual testimony from the trial. One journalist did report that Peter Infante, a frequent testifier for the lawsuit industry, testified on epidemiology for CERT’s lawyer, Raphael Metzger.⁸ Apparently, Infante described some studies as showing statistically significant correlations between coffee drinking and some kinds of cancer. Infante demurred on whether coffee caused these kinds of cancer, and admitted that one “would need a clinical trial to resolve the issue.” David Kessler, the former FDA commissioner who helped create the breast implant litigation fiasco and who now testifies frequently for the Lawsuit Industry, testified for Starbucks. Despite his substantial fear-mongering credentials, Dr Kessler emphasized that coffee is a “staple of the American diet,” and that drinking coffee has known health benefits. As everyone now knows, Starbucks failed to persuade the California trial judge that coffee, acrylamide and all, should come under the statute’s safe harbor provisions.

Almost five years ago, I first blogged about the CERT, in connection with the Milward case.⁹ When I first wrote back in 2013, and until the present, CERT, has not had a website, which is odd for an organization that professes to have an educational mission. In 2013, my research on CERT showed it to be a California corporation, EIN: 42-1571530, founded in 2003, with a business address at 401 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 800, Long Beach, California 90802-4967, and a telephone number: 1-877-TOX-TORT. CERT’s reported mission statement was furthering scientific understanding of toxins. Plaintiffs’ lawyer Ralph Metzger, a denizen of the Prop 65 world, was noted as the contact person for CERT, and indeed, the telephone number for CERT was the same as that for Metzger’s lawfirm, the Metzger Law Group.

As I started to watch the activities of CERT, I detected some curious patterns. I saw CERT file amicus briefs in legal cases, which is not the typical activity of a scientific research organization.¹⁰ Even more curious, and somewhat dubious, in two cases in which Ralphael Metzger of the Metzger Law Group represented the plaintiffs, another firm, Richard Alexander of the Alexander Law Group, represented CERT as an amicus in the same cases.¹¹

Given the publicity created by CERT’s victory in its Proposition 65 citizen’s action against Starbucks, I recently revisited this research. See Alexander Nazaryan, “Will coffee in California come with a cancer warning?” Los Angeles Times (Feb. 18, 2018). One group, “Deniers for Hire,” which describes itself as committed to “debunk anti-science propaganda and expose the activists who produce it,” identified CERT as:

“a sham environmentalist nonprofit that sues food companies and collects settlements to fund additional lawsuits against other food companies. Founded in 2002 by toxicologist Martyn T. Smith, with backing from the shameless trial lawyers at Metzger Law Group, CERT uses junk science to target California businesses that can be sued under the state’s ill-conceived Proposition 65.”

The connection with Martyn T. Smith, was news to me, and interesting given how frequently Smith testifies for plaintiffs in cases involving even minimal benzene exposure. If correct, this website’s connecting Martyn Smith with CERT raises additional conflict-of-interest issues.

Funding of Research

Does CERT actually support research? Perhaps, after a fashion, but the money trail is as sketchy as is the ownership issue. Searching in Google Scholar turns up several publications that openly acknowledge funding from CERT. Perhaps only the young and naïve will be surprised that CERT money went to Martyn Smith, alleged founder of CERT and testifier for plaintiffs’ counsel, and to Smith’s students.¹² In one instance, CERT support has been acknowledged by Martyn Smith and co-authors for the production of a meta-analysis, which can then be relied upon by Smith and other plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in benzene litigation. Although this meta-analysis credits funding from CERT, most readers of a professional journal will have little idea of the funding’s litigation provenance.¹³ The corresponding author of the CERT-funded meta-analysis was an official in the California state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, an office which is in a position to make decisions that help CERT in its California litigation goals.¹⁴

The funding of Martyn Smith and his students would certainly be questionable if Smith was a founder of or a participant in CERT. When Smith’s litigation opinions were challenged in one high-profile case, CERT rallied to his rescue with an amicus brief, which did not disclose any relationship between CERT and Martyn Smith, or CERT’s funding of Smith’s research. Milward v. Acuity Specialty Prods. Group, Inc., 639 F.3d 11 (1^st Cir. 2011).

A current online listing at Guidestar gives Nancy Quam-Wickham as the “principal officer,” with the same EIN for CERT, as I saw five years ago. Quam-Wickham is a professor of history at California State University, in Long Beach. She seems an unlikely person to head up an organization given to research and education on “toxics.” The phone number for CERT is now 6101824891, but the mailing address is still Ralphael Metzger’s law office.

The Charity Navigator website does not rate CERT because its annual revenue is below $1 million. The website describes CERT as a 501(c)(3), with the same current address as Metzger’s lawfirm. According to Charity Navigator, CERT’s IRS 990 return listed assets of $21,880, and income of $137,354, for 2017.

So what are CERT’s educational activities? The sketchiness of CERT’s appearance as an “amicus” in Ralphael Metzger’s own lawsuits seems matched by the sketchiness of the organization’s professed educational mission. A deeper dive discovered that CERT has garnered some acknowledgements on the websites of other organizations. For instance, the Green Science Policy Institute, founded in 2008, for instance, acknowledges CERT for its “generous support” of the Institute’s work.

Some of CERT’s “educational” efforts have not fared particularly well. In the Chemtura Corporation bankruptcy, CERT attempted to intervene to assert a $9 billion claim to compensate “the public” for alleged injuries from the bankrupt’s allegedly toxic chemicals. In re Chemtura Corp., No. 09-11233, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber was not impressed with CERT’s educational efforts, and dismissed the entity as lacking the necessary standing to make a claim.¹⁵

1 Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit 63 (2005).

2 See, e.g., Lisa L. Halko, “California’s Attorney General Acknowledges Prop 65 Abuse,” 22 no. 29 Wash. Leg. Fdtn. Legal Backgrounder (July 27, 2007); Pamela A. MacLean, “California Judge Blasts Firm in Toxic-Warnings Case,” Nat’l L.J. (April 13, 2006); Consumer Defense Group v. Rental Housing Industry Members, 40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 2006) (“As the Attorney General pointed out in oral argument, it does not serve the public interest to have the almost the entirety of the state of California ‘swamped in a sea [of] generic warning signs’.”).

3 See California Cancer Facts and Figures 2017.

4 Birth Defects State Profile – California (2012).

5 Sara Randazzo, “In California, Where Cancer Warnings Abound, Coffee Is Next in Line; Judge is expected to rule whether 1986 state law, meant to warn of potential harms, applies to coffee,” Wall St. J. (Jan. 24, 2018).

6 Anastasia Killian, “Prop 65 Has its Perks for Plaintiffs’ Lawyers in Coffee Litigation,” Forbes (Oct. 10, 2012); Report of California Attorney General for 2011.

7 Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corp., BC435759, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

8 Edvard Pettersson, “Toxic Java? California Law Carries Big Fines, Little Evidence,” Bloomberg (Oct. 25, 2017).

9 “THE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ON TOXICS” (July 9, 2013).

10 See, e.g., Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 7 N.Y.3d 434, 857 N.E.2d 1114, 824 N.Y.S.2d 584 (2006).

11 In Uriarte v. Scott Sales Co., 226 Cal. App. 4th 1396, 172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 886 (2014); Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc., 63 Cal.4th 500, 203 Cal. Rptr. 3d 273, 372 P.3d 200 (2016). In both of these cases, CERT was joined by a band of scientists proclaiming neutrality and failing to disclose their significant litigation activities and income: Dr. Jerrold Abraham, Dr. Richard W. Clapp, Dr. Ronald Crystal, Dr. David A. Eastmond, Dr. Arthur L. Frank, Dr. Robert J. Harrison, Dr. Ronald Melnick, Dr. Lee Newman, Dr. Stephen M. Rappaport, Dr. David Joseph Ross and Dr. Janet Weiss. See “Sand in My Shoe – CERTainly” (June 17, 2014). Of course, California appellate courts require that amici disclose financial interests. A motion for leave to file an amicus brief must include, among other things, the names of all persons or entities that contributed financially to the brief, and acknowledgments about whether any party of party’s lawyer helped fund the preparation or filing of the brief. Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.200(c)(3)(A)(ii), (B), 8.882(d)(3)(A)(ii) and (B).

12 See, e.g., Jimmy Phuong, Simon Kim, Reuben Thomas & Luoping Zhang, “Predicted Toxicity of the Biofuel Candidate 2,5-Dimethylfuran in Envt’l & Biological Systems,” 53 Envt’l & Molecular Mutagenesis 478 (2012); Michele Fromowitz, Joe Shuga, AntonioYip Wlassowsky, Zhiying Ji, Matthew North, Chris D. Vulpe, Martyn T. Smith, and Luoping Zhang, “Bone Marrow Genotoxicity of 2,5-Dimethylfuran, a Green Biofuel Candidate,” 53 Envt’l & Molecular Mutagenesis 488 (2012); Reuben Thomas, Jimmy Phuong, Cliona M. McHale and Luoping Zhang, “Using Bioinformatic Approaches to Identify Pathways Targeted by Human Leukemogens,” 9 Internat’l J. Envt’l. Research & Public Health 2479 (2012).

13 Frolayne M. Carlos-Wallace, Luoping Zhang, Martyn T. Smith, Gabriella Rader & Craig Steinmaus, “Parental, In Utero, and Early-Life Exposure to Benzene and the Risk of Childhood Leukemia: A Meta-Analysis,” 183 Am. J. Epidem. 1 (2016).

14 Dr. Craig Steinmaus, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 1515 Clay Street, 16th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612.

15 Caroline Humer, “Judge rules against big Chemtura bankruptcy claim,” Reuters (April 8, 2010); John Parry, “Chemtura hits back at $9 billion claim over toxins,” Reuters (Mar. 24, 2010).

Posted in Causation, Conflicts of Interest, Expert Witnesses, Public Nuisances | Comments Off on Coffee with Cream, Sugar & a Dash of Acrylamide

The Amicus Curious Brief

January 4th, 2018

Friends – Are They Boxers or Briefers*

Amicus briefs help appellate courts by bringing important views to bear on the facts and the law in disputes. Amicus briefs ameliorate the problem of the common law system, in which litigation takes place between specific parties, with many interested parties looking on, without the ability to participate in the discussion or shape the outcome.

There are dangers, however, of hidden advocacy in the amicus brief. Even the most unsophisticated court is not likely to be misled by the interests and potential conflicts of interest of groups such as the American Association for Justice or the Defense Research Institute. If the description of the group is not as fully forthcoming as one might like, a quick trip to its website will quickly clarify the group’s mission on Earth. No one is fooled, and the amicus briefs can be judged on their merits.

What happens when the amici are identified only by their individual names and institutional affiliations? A court might be misled into thinking that the signatories are merely disinterested academics, who believe that important information or argument is missing from the appellate discussion.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has offered itself up as an example of a court snookered by “58 physicians and scientists.”¹ Rost v. Ford Motor Co., 151 A.3d 1032, 1052 (Pa. 2016). Without paying any attention to the provenance of the amicus brief or the authors’ deep ties with the lawsuit industry, the court cited the brief’s description of:

“the fundamental notion that each exposure to asbestos contributes to the total dose and increases the person’s probability of developing mesothelioma or other cancers as an ‘irrefutable scientific fact’. According to these physicians and scientists, cumulative exposure is merely an extension of the ancient concept of dose-response, which is the ‘oldest maxim in the field’.”

Id. (citing amicus brief at 2).

Well, irrefutable in the minds of the 58 amici curious perhaps, who failed to tell the court that not every exposure contributes materially to cumulative exposure such that it must be considered a “substantial contributing factor.” These would-be friends also failed to tell the court that the human body has defense mechanisms to carcinogenic exposures, which gives rise to a limit on, and qualification of, the concept of dose-response in the form of biological thresholds, below which exposures do not translate into causative doses. Even if these putative “friends” believed there was no evidence for a threshold, they certainly presented no evidence against one. Nonetheless, a confused and misguided Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the judgment below in favor of the plaintiffs.

The 58 amici also misled the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on several other issues. By their failure to disclose important information about themselves, and holding themselves out (falsely but successfully) as “disinterested” physicians and scientists, these so-called friends misled the court by failing to disclose the following facts:

1. Some of them were personal friends, colleagues, and fellow-party expert witnesses of the expert witness (Arthur Frank), whose opinion was challenged in the lower courts;

2. Some of the amici had no reasonable claim to expertise on the issues addressed in the brief;

3. Some of the amici have earned substantial fees in other asbestos cases, involving the same issues raised in the Rost case;

4. Some of the amici have been excluded from testifying in similar cases, to the detriment of their financial balance sheets;

5. Some of the amici are zealous advocates, who not only have testified for plaintiffs, but have participated in highly politicized advocacy groups such as the Collegium Ramazzini.

Two of the amici are historians (Rosner and Markowitz), who have never conducted scientific research on asbestos-related disease. Their work as labor historians added no support to the scientific concepts that were put over the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Both of these historians have testified in multiple asbestos cases, and one of them (Markowitz) has been excluded in a state court case, under a Daubert-like standard. They have never been qualified to give expert witness testimony on medical causation issues. Margaret Keith, an adjunct assistant professor of sociology, appears never to have written about medical causation between asbestos and cancer, but she at least is married to another amicus, James Brophy, who has.

Barry Castleman,² David F. Goldsmith, John M. Dement, Richard A. Lemen, and David Ozonoff have all testified in asbestos or other alleged dust-induced disease cases, with Castleman having the distinction of having made virtually his entire livelihood in connection with plaintiffs-side asbestos litigation testifying and consulting. Castleman, Goldsmith, and Ozonoff have all been excluded from, or severely limited in, testifying for plaintiffs in chemical exposure cases.

(Rabbi) Daniel Thau Teitelbaum has the distinction of having been excluded in case that went to the United States Supreme Court (Joiner), but Shira Kramer,³ Richard Clapp, and Peter F. Infante probably make up for the lack of distinction with the number of testimonial adventures and misadventures. L. Christine Oliver and Colin L. Soskolne have also testified for the lawsuit industry, in the United States, and for Soskolne, in Canada, as well.

Lennart Hardell has testified in cellular telephone brain cancer cases,⁴ for plaintiffs of course, which qualified as an expert for the IARC on electromagnetic frequency and carcinogenesis.⁵

Celeste Monforton has earned credentials serving with fellow skapper David Michaels in the notorious Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) organization.⁶ Laura S. Welch, like Monforton, another George Washington lecturer, has served the lawsuit industry in asbestos personal injury and other cases.

Exhibit A to the Amicus brief lists the institutional affiliations of each amicus. Although some of the amici described themselves as “consultants,” only one amicus (Massimiliano Bugiani) listed his consultancy as specifically litigation related, with an identification of the party that engaged him: “Consultant of the Plaintiff in the Turin and Milan Courts.” Despite Bugiani’s honorable example, none of the other amici followed suit.

* * * * * * * *

Although many judges and lawyers agree that amicus briefs often bring important factual expertise to appellate courts, there are clearly some abuses. I, for one, am proud to have been associated with a few amicus briefs in various courts. One law professor, Allison Orr Larsen, in a trenchant law review article, has identified some problems and has suggested some reforms.⁷ Regardless of what readers think of Larsen’s proposed reforms, briefs should not be submitted by testifying and consulting expert witnesses for one side in a particular category of litigation, without disclosing fully and accurately their involvement in the underlying cases, and their financial enrichment from perpetuating the litigation in question.

* Thanks to Ramses Delafontaine for having alerted me to other aspects of the lack of transparency in connection with amicus briefs filed by professional historian organizations.

1 Brief of Muge Akpinar-Elci, Xaver Bauer, Carlos Bedrossian, Eula Bingham, Yv Bonnier-Viger, James Brophy, Massimiliano Buggiani, Barry Castleman, Richard Clapp, Dario Consonni, Emilie Counil, Mohamed Aquiel Dalvie, John M. Dement, Tony Fletcher, Bice Fubini, Thomas H. Gassert, David F. Goldsmith, Michael Gochfeld, Lennart Hadell [sic, Hardell], James Huff, Peter F. Infante, Moham F. Jeebhay, T. K. Joshi, Margaret Keith, John R. Keyserlingk, Kapil Khatter, Shira Kramer, Philip J. Landrigan, Bruce Lanphear, Richard A. Lemen, Charles Levenstein, Abby Lippman, Gerald Markowitz, Dario Mirabelli, Sigurd Mikkelsen, Celeste Monforton, Rama C. Nair, L. Christine Oliver, David Ozonoff, Domyung Paek, Smita Pakhale, Rolf Petersen, Beth Rosenberg, Kenneth Rosenman, David Rosner, Craig Slatin, Michael Silverstein, Colin L. Soskolne, Leslie Thomas Stayner, Ken Takahashi, Daniel Thau Teitelbaum, Benedetto Terracini, Annie Thebaud-Mony, Fernand Turcotte, Andrew Watterson, David H. Wegman, Laura S. Welch, Hans-Joachim Woitowitz as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellee, 2015 WL 3385332, filed in Rost v. Ford Motor Co., 151 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2016).

2 See “The Selikoff – Castleman Conspiracy” (Mar. 13, 2011).

3 See “Lumpenepidemiology” (Dec. 14, 2012); “Open Admissions for Expert Witnesses in Chantix Litigation” (Sept. 1, 2012); “As They WOE, So No Recovery Have the Reeps” (May 22, 2013).

4 Newman v. Motorola, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 769 (D. Md. 2002) (excluding Hardell’s proposed testimony), aff’d, 78 Fed. Appx. 292 (4th Cir. 2003) (affirming exclusion of Hardell).

5 See IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Volume 102 (2013).

6 See, e.g., “SKAPP A LOT” (April 30, 2010); “Manufacturing Certainty” (Oct. 25, 2011); “David Michaels’ Public Relations Problem” (Dec. 2, 2011); “Conflicted Public Interest Groups” (Nov. 3, 2013).

7 See Allison Orr Larsen, “The Trouble with Amicus Facts,” 100 Virginia L. Rev. 1757 (2014). See also Caitlin E. Borgmann, “Appellate Review of Social Facts in Constitutional Rights Cases,” 101 Calif. L. Rev. 1185, 1216 (2013) (“Amicus briefs, in particular, are often submitted by advocates and may be replete with dubious factual assertions that would never be admitted at trial.”).

Posted in Asbestos, Causation, Conflicts of Interest, Expert Witnesses | Comments Off on The Amicus Curious Brief

Some High-Value Targets for Sander Greenland in 2018

December 27th, 2017

A couple of years ago, Sander Greenland and I had an interesting exchange on Deborah Mayo’s website. I tweaked Sander for his practice of calling out defense expert witnesses for statistical errors, while ignoring whoopers made by plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. See “Significance Levels Made a Whipping Boy on Climate-Change Evidence: Is p < 0.05 Too Strict?” Error Statistics (Jan. 6, 2015).¹ Sander acknowledged that he received a biased sample of expert reports through his service as a plaintiffs’ expert witness, but protested that defense counsel avoided him like the plague. In an effort to be helpful, I directed Sander to an example of bad statistical analysis that had been proffered by Dr Bennett Omalu, in a Dursban case, Pritchard v. Dow Agro Sciences, 705 F. Supp. 2d 471 (W.D. Pa. 2010), aff’d, 430 F. App’x 102, 104 (3d Cir. 2011).²

Sander was unimpressed with my example of Dr. Omalu; he found the example “a bit disappointing though because [Omalu] was merely a county medical examiner, and his junk analysis was duly struck. The expert I quoted in my citations was a full professor of biostatistics at a major public university, a Fellow of the American Statistical Association, a holder of large NIH grants, and his analysis (more subtle in its transgressions) was admitted” (emphasis added). Sander expressed an interest in finding “examples involving similarly well-credentialed, professionally accomplished plaintiff experts whose testimony was likewise admitted… .”

Although it was heartening to read Sander’s concurrence in the assessment of Omalu’s analysis as “junk,” Sander’s rejection of Dr. Omalu as merely a low-value target was disappointing, given that Omalu also has a master’s degree in public health, from the University of Pittsburgh, where he claims he studied with Professor Lew Kuller. Omalu has also gained some fame and notoriety for his claim to have identified the problem of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) among professional football players. After all, even Sander Greenland has not been the subject of a feature-length movie (Concussion), as has Omalu.

I lost track of our exchange in 2015, until recently I was reminded of it when reading an expert report by Professor Martin Wells. Unlike Omalu, Wells meets all the Greenland criteria for high-value targets. He is not only a full, chaired professor but also the statistics department chairman at an ivy-league school, Cornell University. Wells is a fellow of both the American Statistical Association and the Royal Statistical Society, but most important, Wells is a frequent plaintiffs’ expert witness, who is well known to Sander Greenland. Both Wells and Greenland served, side by side, as plaintiffs’ expert witnesses in the pain pump litigation.

So here is the passage in the Wells’ report that is worthy of Greenland’s attention:

“If a 95% confidence interval is specified, the range encompasses the results we would expect 95% of the time if samples for new studies were repeatedly drawn from the same population.”

In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig., Declaration of Martin T. Wells, Ph.D., at 2-3 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 30, 2016). Unlike the Dursban litigation involving Bennett Omalu, where the “junk analysis” was excluded, in the litigation against AbbVie for its manufacture and selling of prescription testosterone supplementation, Wells’ opinions were not excluded or limited. In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 14 C 1748, MDL No. 2545, 2017 WL 1833173 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2017) (denying Rule 702 motions).

Now this statement by Wells surely offends the guidance provided by Greenland and colleagues.³ And it was exactly the sort of misrepresentation that led to a confabulation of the American Statistical Association, and that Association’s consensus statement on statistical significance.⁴

And here is another example, which occurs not in a distorting litigation forum, but on the pages of an occupational health journal, where the editor in chief, Anthony L. Kiorpes, ranted about the need for better statistical editing and writing in his own journal. See Anthony L Kiorpes, “Lies, damned lies, and statistics,” 33 Toxicol. & Indus. Health 885 (2017). Kiorpes decried he misuse of statistics:

“I am not implying that it is the intent of the scientists who publish in these pages to mislead readers by their use of statistics, but I submit that the misuse of statistics, whether intentional or otherwise, creates confusion and error.”

Id. at 885. Kiorpes then proceeded to hold himself up as Exhibit A to his screed:

“Remember that p values are estimates of the probability that the null hypothesis (no difference) is true.”

Id. Uggh; we seem to be back sliding after the American Statistical Association’s consensus statement.

“Almost all scientists have stated (or have been tempted to state) something like ‘the mean of Group A was greater than that of Group B, but the difference was not statistically significant’. With very few exceptions (which I will mention below), this statement is nonsense.”

* * * * *

“What the statistics are indicating when the p-value is greater than 0.05 is that there is ‘no difference’ between group A and group B.”

Id. at 886.

Let’s hope that this gets Sander Greenland away from his biased sampling of expert witnesses, off the backs of defense expert witnesses, and on to some of the real culprits out there, in the new year.

2 See also “Pritchard v. Dow Agro – Gatekeeping Exemplified” (Aug. 25, 2014); “Omalu and Science — A Bad Weld” (Oct. 22, 2016); Brian v. Association of Independent Oil Distributors, No. 2011-3413, Westmoreland Cty. Ct. Common Pleas, Order of July 18, 2016 (excluding Dr. Omalu’s testimony on welding and solvents and Parkinson’s disease).

3 See, e.g., Sander Greenland, Stephen J. Senn, Kenneth J. Rothman, John B. Carlin, Charles Poole, Steven N. Goodman, and Douglas G. Altman, “Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations,” 31 Eur. J. Epidem. 337 (2016).

4 Ronald L. Wasserstein & Nicole A. Lazar, “American Statistical Association Statement on statistical significance and p values,” 70 Am. Statistician 129 (2016)

Posted in Cognitive Biases, Conflicts of Interest, Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, statistical evidence | Comments Off on Some High-Value Targets for Sander Greenland in 2018

Mississippi High Court Takes the Bite Out of Forensic Evidence

November 3rd, 2017

The Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in Daubert changed the thrust of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs the admissibility of expert witness opinion testimony in both civil and criminal cases. Before Daubert, lawyers who hoped to exclude opinions lacking in evidentiary and analytical support turned to the Frye decision on “general acceptance.” Frye, however, was an outdated rule that was rarely applied outside the context of devices. Furthermore, the meaning and application of Frye were unclear. Confusion reigned on whether expert witnesses could survive Frye challenges simply by adverting to their claimed use of a generally accepted science, such as epidemiology, even though their implementation of epidemiologic science was sloppy, incoherent, and invalid.

Daubert noted that Rule 702 should be interpreted in the light of the “liberal” goals of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Some observers rejoiced at the invocation of “liberal” values, but history of the last 25 years has shown that they really yearned for libertine interpretations of the rules. Liberal, of course, never meant “anything goes.” It is unclear why “liberal” cannot mean restricting evidence not likely to advance the truth-finding function of trials.

Criminal versus Civil

Back on April 27, 2009, then President Barack Obama announced the formation of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The mission of PCAST was to advise the President and his administration on science and technology, and their policy implications. Although the PCAST was a new council, presidents have had scientific advisors and advisory committees back to Franklin Roosevelt, in 1933.

On September 20, 2016, PCAST issued an important report to President Obama, Report to the President on Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. Few areas of forensic “science,” beyond DNA matching, escaped the Council’s withering criticism. Bite-mark evidence in particular received a thorough mastication.

The criticism was hardly new. Seven years earlier, the National Academies of Science issued an indictment that forensic scientists had largely failed to establish the validity of their techniques and conclusions, and that the judiciary had “been utterly ineffective in addressing this problem.”¹

The response from Obama’s Department of Justice, led by Loretta Lynch, was underwhelming.² The Trump response was equally disappointing.³ The Left and the Right appear to agree that science is dispensable when it becomes politically inconvenient. It is a common place in the community of evidence scholars that Rule 702 is not applied with the same enthusiasm in criminal cases, to the benefit of criminal defendants, as the rule is sometimes, sporadically and inconsistently applied in civil cases. The Daubert revolution has failed the criminal justice system perhaps because courts are unwilling to lift the veil on forensic evidence, for fear they may not like what the find.⁴

A Grudging Look at the Scientific Invalidity of Bite Mark Evidence

Sherwood Brown was convicted of a triple murder in large measure as a result of testimony from Dr. Michael West, a forensic odontologist. West, as well as another odontologist, opined that a cut on Brown’s wrist matched the shape of a victim’s mouth. DNA testing authorized after the conviction, however, rendered West’s opinions edentulous. Samples from inside the female victim’s mouth yielded male DNA, but not that of Mr. Brown.⁵

Did the PCAST report leave an impression upon the highest court of Mississippi? The Supreme Court of Mississippi vacated Brown’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, in an opinion that a bitemark expert might describe as reading like a bite into a lemon. Brown v. State, No. 2017 DR 00206 SCT, Slip op. (Miss. Sup. Ct. Oct. 26, 2017). The majority could not bring themselves to comment upon the Dr. West’s toothless opinions. Three justices would have kicked the can down to the trial judge by voting to grant a new hearing without vacating Brown’s convictions. The decision seems mostly predicated on the strength of the DNA evidence, rather than the invalidity of the bite mark evidence. Mr. Brown will probably be vindicated, but bite mark evidence will continue to mislead juries, with judicial imprimatur.

1 National Research Council, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 53 (2009).

2 See Jordan Smith, “FBI and DoJ Vow to Continue Using Junk Science Rejected by White House Report,” The Intercept (Sept. 23, 2016); Radley Balko, “When Obama wouldn’t fight for science,” Wash. Post (Jan. 4, 2017).

3 See Radley Balko, “Jeff Sessions wants to keep forensics in the Dark Ages,” Wash. Post (April 11, 2017); Jessica Gabel Cino, “Session’s Assault on Forensic Science Will Lead to More Unsafe Convictions,” Newsweek (April 20, 2017).

4 See, e.g., Paul C. Giannelli, “Forensic Science: Daubert’s Failure,” Case Western Reserve L. Rev. (2017) (“in press”).

5 See Jeff Amy, “Mississippi Court Overturns Convictions in 1993 Slayings,” Forensic Mag. (Oct. 27, 2017); Therese Apel, “Death row inmate’s triple killing conviction overturned,” The Clarion-Ledger (Oct. 26, 2017).

Posted in Expert Witnesses, Frye, Rule 702 | Comments Off on Mississippi High Court Takes the Bite Out of Forensic Evidence

Disappearing Conflicts of Interest

October 29th, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Echeverria Talc Trial – Crossexamination on Alleged Expert Witness Misconduct

October 21st, 2017

In a post-trial end-zone victory dance in Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson, plaintiffs’ lawyer, Allen Smith proffered three explanations for the jury’s stunning $417 million verdict in his talc ovarian cancer case.¹ One of the explanations asserted was Smith’s boast that he had adduced evidence that Johnson & Johnson’s expert witness on epidemiology, Douglas Weed, a former National Cancer Institute epidemiologist and physician, 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.² Having now viewed Dr. Weed’s testimony³, through the Courtroom Video Network, I can evaluate Smith’s claim.

Weed’s allegedly perjurious testimony took place in Carter v. Fiber Composites LLC, 11 CVS 1355, N.C. Super. Ct., where he served as a party expert witness. In April 2014, Weed gave deposition testimony in the discovery phase of the Carter case. Although not served personally with a lawful subpoena, defense counsel had agreed to accept a subpoena for their expert witness to appear and produce documents, as was the local custom. In deposition, plaintiffs’ counsel asked Dr. Weed to produce any notes he created in the process of researching and writing his expert witness report. Dr. Weed testified that he had no notes.

The parties disputed whether Dr. Weed had complied with a subpoena served upon defense counsel. The discovery dispute escalated and Dr. Weed obtained legal counsel, and submitted a sworn affidavit that denied the existence of notes. Plaintiffs’ counsel pressed on Dr. Weed’s understanding that he had no “notes.” In an Order, dated May 6, 2014, the trial court directed Dr. Weed to produce everything in his possession. In response to the order, Weed produced his calendar and a thumb drive with “small fragments of notes,” “inserts,” and “miscellaneous items.”

The North Carolina court did not take kindly to Dr. Weed’s confusion about whether his report “segments” and “inserts” were notes, or not. Dr. Weed viewed the segments and inserts to have been parts of his report, and later included within his report without any substantial change. The court concluded, however, that although Dr. Weed did not violate any court order, his assertion, in deposition, in an affidavit, and through legal counsel, was unreasonable, and directly related to his credibility in the Carter case. See Order Concerning Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants and Non-Party Witness for Defendants (June 22, 2015) (Forrest D. Bridges, J.).

The upshot was that Dr. Weed and his counsel had provided false information to the court, on the court’s understanding of what had been requested in discovery. In the court’s view, Dr. Weed’s misunderstanding may have been understandable as a non-lawyer, but it was not reasonable for him to persist and have his counsel argue that there were no notes. The trial court specifically did not find that Dr. Weed had lied, as asserted by Allen Smith, but found that Weed’s conduct was undertaken intentionally or with reckless disregard of the truth, and that his testimony was an unacceptable violation of the oath to tell the whole truth. The trial court concluded that it could not sanction Dr. Weed personally, but its order specified that as a sanction, the plaintiffs’ counsel would be permitted to cross-examine Dr. Weed with the court’s findings and conclusions in the Carter case. Id. Not surprisingly, defense counsel withdrew Dr. Weed as an expert witness.

In the Echeverria case, the defense counsel did not object to the cross-examination; the video proceedings did not inform the viewers whether there had been a prior motion in limine concerning this examination. Allen Smith’s assertion about the North Carolina court’s findings was thus almost true. A cynic might say he too had not told the whole truth, but he did march Dr. Weed through Judge Bridges’ order of June 2015, which was displayed to the jury.

Douglas Weed handled the cross-examination about as well as possible. He explained on cross, and later on redirect, that he did not regard segments of his report, which were later incorporated into his report as served, to be notes. He pointed out that there was no information in the segments, which differed from the final report, or which was not included in the report. Smith’s cross-examination, however, had raised questions not so much about credibility (despite Judge Bridges’ findings), but about whether Dr. Weed was a “quibbler,” who would hide behind idiosyncratic understandings of important words such as “consistency.” Given how harmless the belatedly produced report fragments and segments were, we are left to wonder why Dr. Weed persisted in not volunteering them.

Smith’s confrontation of Dr. Weed with the order from the Carter case came at the conclusion of a generally unsuccessful cross-examination. Unlike the Slemp case, in which Smith appeared to be able to ask unfounded questions without restraint from the bench, in Echeverria, Smith drew repeated objections, which were frequently sustained. His response often was to ask almost the same question again, drawing the same objection and the same ruling. He sounded stymied and defeated.

Courtroom Video Network, of course, does not film the jurors, and so watching the streaming video of the trial offers no insights into how the jurors reacted in real time to Smith’s cross-examination. If Weed’s testimony was ignored or discredited by Smith’s cross-examination on the Carter order, then the Escheverria case cannot be considered a useful test of the plaintiffs’ causal claim. Dr. Weed had offered important testimony on methodological issues for conducting and interpreting studies, as well as inferring causation.

One of the peculiarities of the Slemp case was that the defense offered no epidemiologist in the face of two epidemiologists offered by the plaintiff. In Escheverria, the defense addressed this gap and went further to have its epidemiologist address the glaring problem of how any specific causal inference can be drawn from a risk ratio of 1.3. Dr. Weed explained attributable risk and probability of causation, and this testimony and many other important points went without cross-examination or contradiction. And yet, after finding general causation on a weak record, the jury somehow leaped over an insurmountable epistemic barrier on specific causation.

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

2 “Lawsuit Magic – Turning Talcum into Wampum” (Aug. 27, 2017).

3 The cross-examination at issue arose about one hour, nine minutes into Smith’s cross-examination, on Aug. 15, 2017.

Posted in Expert Witness Discovery, Expert Witnesses | Comments Off on Echeverria Talc Trial – Crossexamination on Alleged Expert Witness Misconduct

Multiplicity in the Third Circuit

September 21st, 2017

In Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, C.A. No. 2:10-cv-01283 (W. D. Pa.), plaintiffs claimed that their employer’s reduction in force unlawfully targeted workers over 50 years of age. Plaintiffs lacked any evidence of employer animus against old folks, and thus attempted to make out a statistical disparate impact claim. The plaintiffs placed their chief reliance upon an expert witness, Michael A. Campion, to analyze a dataset of workers agreed to have been the subject of the R.I.F. For the last 30 years, Campion has been on the faculty in Purdue University. His academic training and graduate degrees are in industrial and organizational psychology. Campion has served an editor of Personnel Psychology, and as a past president of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Campion’s academic website page notes that he manages a small consulting firm, Campion Consulting Services ¹.

The defense sought to characterize Campion as not qualified to offer his statistical analysis². Campion did, however, have some statistical training as part of his master’s level training in psychology, and his professional publications did occasionally involve statistical analyses. To be sure, Campion’s statistical acumen paled in comparison to the defense expert witness, James Rosenberger, a fellow and a former vice president of the American Statistical Association, as well as a full professor of statistics in Pennsylvania State University. The threshold for qualification, however, is low, and the defense’s attack on Campion’s qualifications failed to attract the court’s serious attention.

On the merits, the defense subjected Campion to a strong challenge on whether he had misused data. The defense’s expert witness, Prof. Rosenberger, filed a report that questioned Campion’s data handling and statistical analyses. The defense claimed that Campion had engaged in questionable data manipulation by including, in his RIF analysis, workers who had been terminated when their plant was transferred to another company, as well as workers who retired voluntarily.

Using simple z-score tests, Campion compared the ages of terminated and non-terminated employees in four subgroups, ages 40+, 45+, 50+, and 55+. He did not conduct an analysis of the 60+ subgroup on the claim that this group had too few members for the test to have sufficient power³. Campion found a small z-score for the 40+ versus <40 age groups comparison (z =1.51), which is not close to statistical significance at the 5% level. On the defense’s legal theory, this was the crucial comparison to be made under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The plaintiffs, however, maintained that they could make out a case of disparate impact by showing age discrimination at age subgroups that started above the minimum specified by the ADEA. Although age is a continuous variable, Campion decided to conduct z-scores on subgroups that were based upon five-year increments. For the 45+, 50+, and 55+ age subgroups, he found z-scores that ranged from 2.15 to 2.46, and he concluded that there was evidence of disparate impact in the higher age subgroups⁴. Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, C.A. No. 2:10-cv-01283, 2015 WL 4232600, at *11 (W.D. Pa. July 13, 2015) (McVerry, S.J.)

The defense, and apparently the defense expert witnesses, branded Campion’s analysis as “data snooping,” which required correction for multiple comparisons. In the defense’s view, the multiple age subgroups required a Bonferroni correction that would have diminished the critical p-value for “significance” by a factor of four. The trial court agreed with the defense contention about data snooping and multiple comparisons, and excluded Campion’s opinion of disparate impact, which had been based upon finding statistically significant disparities in the 45+, 50+, and 55+ age subgroups. 2015 WL 4232600, at *13. The trial court noted that Campion, in finding significant disparities in terminations in the subgroups, but not in the 40+ versus <40 analysis:

“[did] not apply any of the generally accepted statistical procedures (i.e., the Bonferroni procedure) to correct his results for the likelihood of a false indication of significance. This sort of subgrouping ‘analysis’ is data-snooping, plain and simple.”

Id. After excluding Campion’s opinions under Rule 702, as well as other evidence in support of plaintiffs’ disparate impact claim, the trial court granted summary judgment on the discrimination claims. Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, No. 2:10–cv–1283, 2015 WL 5156913 (W. D. Pa. Sept. 2, 2015).

On plaintiffs’ appeal, the Third Circuit took the wind out of the attack on Campion by holding that the ADEA prohibits disparate impacts based upon age, which need not necessarily be on workers’ being over 40 years old, as opposed to being at least 40 years old. Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 849 F.3d 61, 66-68 (3d Cir. 2017). This holding took the legal significance out of the statistical insignificance of Campion’s comparison 40+ versus <40 age-group termination rates. Campion’s subgroup analyses were back in play, but the Third Circuit still faced the question whether Campion’s conclusions, based upon unadjusted z-scores and p-values, offended Rule 702.

The Third Circuit noted that the district court had identified three grounds for excluding Campion’s statistical analyses:

(1) Dr. Campion used facts or data that were not reliable;

(2) he failed to use a statistical adjustment called the Bonferroni procedure; and

(3) his testimony lacks ‘‘fit’’ to the case because subgroup claims are not cognizable.

849 F.3d at 81. The first issue was raised by the defense’s claims of Campion’s sloppy data handling, and inclusion of voluntarily retired workers and workers who were terminated when their plant was turned over to another company. The Circuit did not address these data handling issues, which it left for the trial court on remand. Id. at 82. The third ground went out of the case with the appellate court’s resolution of the scope of the ADEA. The Circuit did, however, engage on the issue whether adjustment for multiple comparisons was required by Rule 702.

On the “data-snooping” issue, the Circuit concluded that the trial court had applied “an incorrectly rigorous standard for reliability.” Id. The Circuit acknowledged that

“[i]n theory, a researcher who searches for statistical significance in multiple attempts raises the probability of discovering it purely by chance, committing Type I error (i.e., finding a false positive).”

849 F.3d at 82. The defense expert witness contended that applying the Bonferroni adjustment, which would have reduced the critical significance probability level from 5% to 1%, would have rendered Campion’s analyses not statistically significant, and thus not probative of disparate impact. Given that plaintiffs’ cases were entirely statistical, the adjustment would have been fatal to their cases. Id. at 82.

At the trial level and on appeal, plaintiffs and Campion had objected to the data-snooping charge on ground that

(1) he had engaged in only four subgroups;

(2) virtually all subgroups were statistically significant;

(3) his methodology was “hypothesis driven” and involved logical increments in age to explore whether the strength of the evidence of age disparity in terminations continued in each, increasingly older subgroup;

(4) his method was analogous to replications with different samples; and

(5) his result was confirmed by a single, supplemental analysis.

Id. at 83. According to the plaintiffs, Campion’s approach was based upon the reality that age is a continuous, not a dichotomous variable, and he was exploring a single hypothesis. A.240-241; Brief of Appellants at 26. Campion’s explanations do mitigate somewhat the charge of “data snooping,” but they do not explain why Campion did not use a statistical analysis that treated age as a continuous variable, at the outset of his analysis. The single, supplemental analysis was never described or reported by the trial or appellate courts.

The Third Circuit concluded that the district court had applied a ‘‘merits standard of correctness,’’ which is higher than what Rule 702 requires. Specifically, the district court, having identified a potential methodological flaw, did not further evaluate whether Campion’s opinion relied upon good grounds. 849 F.3d at 83. The Circuit vacated the judgment below, and remanded the case to the district court for the opportunity to apply the correct standard.

The trial court’s acceptance that an adjustment was appropriate or required hardly seems a “merits standard.” The use of a proper adjustment for multiple comparisons is very much a methodological concern. If Campion could reach his conclusion only by way of an inappropriate methodology, then his conclusion surely would fail the requirements of Rule 702. The trial court did, however, appear to accept, without explicit evidence, that the failure to apply the Bonferroni correction made it impossible for Campion to present sound scientific argument for his conclusion that there had been disparate impact. The trial court’s opinion also suggests that the Bonferroni correction itself, as opposed to some more appropriate correction, was required.

Unfortunately, the reported opinions do not provide the reader with a clear account of what the analyses would have shown on the correct data set, without improper inclusions and exclusions, and with appropriate statistical adjustments. Presumably, the parties are left to make their cases on remand.

Based upon citations to sources that described the Bonferroni adjustment as “good statistical practice,” but one that is ‘‘not widely or consistently adopted’’ in the behavioral and social sciences, the Third Circuit observed that in some cases, failure to adjust for multiple comparisons may “simply diminish the weight of an expert’s finding.”⁵ The observation is problematic given that Kumho Tire suggests that an expert witness must use “in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150, (1999). One implication is that courts are prisoners to prevalent scientific malpractice and abuse of statistical methodology. Another implication is that courts need to look more closely at the assumptions and predicates for various statistical tests and adjustments, such as the Bonferroni correction.

These worrisome implications are exacerbated by the appellate court’s insistence that the question whether a study’s result was properly calculated or interpreted “goes to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility.”⁶ Combined with citations to pre-Daubert statistics cases⁷, judicial comments such as these can appear to be a general disregard for the statutory requirements of Rules 702 and 703. Claims of statistical significance, in studies with multiple exposure and multiple outcomes, are frequently not adjusted for multiple comparisons, without notation, explanation, or justification. The consequence is that study results are often over-interpreted and over-sold. Methodological errors related to multiple testing or over-claiming statistical significance are commonplace in tort litigation over “health-effects” studies of birth defects, cancer, and other chronic diseases that require epidemiologic evidence⁸.

In Karlo, the claimed methodological error is beset by its own methodological problems. As the court noted, adjustments for multiple comparisons are not free from methodological controversy⁹. One noteworthy textbook¹⁰ labels the Bonferroni correction as an “awful response” to the problem of multiple comparisons. Aside from this strident criticism, there are alternative approaches to statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons. In the context of the Karlo case, the Bonferroni might well be awful because Campion’s four subgroups are hardly independent tests. Because each subgroup is nested within the next higher age subgroup, the subgroup test results will be strongly correlated in a way that defeats the mathematical assumptions of the Bonferroni correction. On remand, the trial court in Karlo must still make his Rule 702 gatekeeping decision on the methodological appropriateness of whether Campion’s properly considered the role of multiple subgroups, and multiple anaslyses run on different models.

1 Although Campion describes his consulting business as small, he seems to turn up in quite a few employment discrimination cases. See, e.g., Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 10 Civ. 6950 (AT) (JCF) (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Brand v. Comcast Corp., Case No. 11 C 8471 (N.D. Ill. July 5, 2014); Powell v. Dallas Morning News L.P., 776 F. Supp. 2d 240, 247 (N.D. Tex. 2011) (excluding Campion’s opinions), aff’d, 486 F. App’x 469 (5th Cir. 2012).

2 See Defendant’s Motion to Bar Dr. Michael Campion’s Statistical Analysis, 2013 WL 11260556.

3 There was no mention of an effect size for the lower aged subgroups, and a power calculation for the 60+ subgroup’s probability of showing a z-score greater than two. Similarly, there was no discussion or argument about why this subgroup could not have been evaluated with Fisher’s exact test. In deciding the appeal, the Third Circuit observed that “Dr. Rosenberger test[ed] a subgroup of sixty-and-older employees, which Dr. Campion did not include in his analysis because ‘[t]here are only 14 terminations, which means the statistical power to detect a significant effect is very low’. A.244–45.” Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 849 F.3d 61, 82 n.15 (3d Cir. 2017).

4 In the trial court’s words, the z-score converts the difference in termination rates into standard deviations. Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, C.A. No. 2:10-cv-01283, 2015 WL 4232600, at *11 n.13 (W.D. Pa. July 13, 2015). According to the trial court, Campion gave a rather dubious explanation of the meaning of the z-score: “[w]hen the number of standard deviations is less than –2 (actually–1.96), there is a 95% probability that the difference in termination rates of the subgroups is not due to chance alone” Id. (internal citation omitted).

5 See 849 F.3d 61, 83 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing and quoting from Paetzold & Willborn § 6:7, at 308 n.2) (describing the Bonferroni adjustment as ‘‘good statistical practice,’’ but ‘‘not widely or consistently adopted’’ in the behavioral and social sciences); see also E.E.O.C. v. Autozone, Inc., No. 00-2923, 2006 WL 2524093, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 29, 2006) (‘‘[T]he Court does not have a sufficient basis to find that … the non-utilization [of the Bonferroni adjustment] makes [the expert’s] results unreliable.’’). And of course, the Third Circuit invoked the Daubert chestnut: ‘‘Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but

admissible evidence.’’ Daubert, 509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993).

6 See 849 F.3d at 83 (citing Leonard v. Stemtech Internat’l Inc., 834 F.3d 376, 391 (3d Cir. 2016).

7 See 849 F.3d 61, 83 (3d Cir. 2017), citing Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400 (1986) (‘‘Normally, failure to include variables will affect the analysis’ probativeness, not its admissibility.’’).

8 See Hans Zeisel & David Kaye, Prove It with Figures: Empirical Methods in Law and Litigation 93 & n.3 (1997) (criticizing the “notorious” case of Wells v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 788 F.2d 741 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 950 (1986), for its erroneous endorsement of conclusions based upon “statistically significant” studies that explored dozens of congenital malformation outcomes, without statistical adjustment). The authors do, however, give an encouraging example of a English trial judge who took multiplicity seriously. Reay v. British Nuclear Fuels (Q.B. Oct. 8,1993) (published in The Independent, Nov. 22,1993). In Reay, the trial court took seriously the multiplicity of hypotheses tested in the study relied upon by plaintiffs. Id. (“the fact that a number of hypotheses were considered in the study requires an increase in the P-value of the findings with consequent reduction in the confidence that can be placed in the study result … .”), quoted in Zeisel & Kaye at 93. Zeisel and Kaye emphasize that courts should not be overly impressed with claims of statistically significant findings, and should pay close attention to how expert witnesses developed their statistical models. Id. at 94.

9 See David B. Cohen, Michael G. Aamodt, and Eric M. Dunleavy, Technical Advisory Committee Report on Best Practices in Adverse Impact Analyses (Center for Corporate Equality 2010).

10 Kenneth J. Rothman, Sander Greenland, and Timoth L. Lash, Modern Epidemiology 273 (3d ed. 2008); see also Kenneth J. Rothman, “No Adjustments Are Needed for Multiple Comparisons,” 1 Epidemiology 43, 43 (1990)

Posted in Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Rule 703, statistical evidence | Comments Off on Multiplicity in the Third Circuit

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

WOE — Zoloft Escapes a MDL While Third Circuit Creates a Conceptual Muddle

July 31st, 2017

Multidistrict Litigations (MDLs) can be “muddles” that are easy to get in, but hard to get out of. Pfizer and subsidiary Greenstone fabulously escaped a muddle through persistent lawyering and the astute gatekeeping of a district judge, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. That judge, the Hon. Cynthia Rufe, sustained objections to the admissibility of plaintiffs’ epidemiologic expert witness Anick Bérard. When the MDL’s plaintiffs’ steering committee (PSC) demanded, requested, and begged for a do over, Judge Rufe granted them one more chance. The PSC put their litigation industry eggs in a single basket, carried by statistician Nicholas Jewell. Unfortunately for the PSC, Judge Rufe found Jewell’s basket to be as methodologically defective as Bérard’s, and Her Honor excluded Jewell’s proffered testimony. Motions, paper, and appeals followed, but on June 2, 2017, the Third Circuit declared that the PSC and its clients had had enough opportunities to get through the gate. Their baskets of methodological deplorables were not up to snuff. In re Zoloft Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 16-2247 , __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 2385279, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9832 (3d Cir. June 2, 2017) (affirming exclusion of Jewell’s dodgy opinions, which involved multiple methodological flaws and failures to follow any methodology faithfully) [Slip op. cited below as Zoloft].

Plaintiffs Attempt to Substitute WOE for Depressingly Bad Expert Witness Opinion

The ruse of conflating “weight of the evidence,” as used to describe the appellate standard of review for sustaining or reversing a trial court’s factual finding with a purported scientific methodology for inferring causation, was on full display by the PSC in their attack on Judge Rufe’s gatekeeping. In their appellate brief in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the PSC asserted that Jewell had used a “weight of the evidence method,” even though that phrase, “weight of the evidence” (WOE) was never used in Jewell’s litigation reports. The full context of the PSC’s argument and citations to Milward make clear a deliberate attempt to conflate WOE as an appellate judicial standard for reviewing jury fact finding and a purported scientific methodology. See Appellants’ Opening Brief at 54 (Aug. 10, 2016) [cited as PSC] (asserting that “[a]t all times, the ultimate evaluation of the weight of the evidence is a jury question”; citing Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc., 639 F.3d 11, 20 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 63 (2012).

Having staked the ground that WOE is akin to a jury’s factual finding, and thus immune to any but the most extraordinary trial court action or appellate intervention, the PSC then pivoted to claim that Jewell’s WOE-ful method was nothing much more than an assessment of “the totality of the available scientific evidence, guided by the well-accepted Bradford-Hill criteria.” PSC at 3, 4, 7. This maneuver allowed the PSC to argue, apparently with a straight face, that WOE methodology as used by Jewell, had been generally accepted in the scientific community, as well as by the Third Circuit, in previous cases in which the court accepted the use of Bradford Hill’s considerations as a reliable method for establishing general causation. See PSC at 4 (citing Gannon v. United States, 292 F. App’x 170, 173 n.1 (3d Cir. 2008)). Jewell then simply plugged in his expertise and “40 years of experience,” and the desired conclusion of causation popped out. Id. Quod erat demonstrandum.

In pressing its point, the PSC took full advantage of loose, inaccurate language from the American Law Institute’s Restatement’s notorious comment C:

“No algorithm exists for applying the Hill guidelines to determine whether an association truly reflects a causal relationship or is spurious.”

PSC at 33-34, citing Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical and Emotional Harm § 28 cmt. c(3) (2010). Well true, but the absence of a mathematical algorithm hardly means that causal judgments are devoid of principles and standards. The PSC was undeterred, by text or by shame, from equating an unarticulated use of WOE methodology with some vague invocation of Bradford Hill’s considerations for evaluating associations for causality. See PSC at 43 (citing cases that never mentioned WOE but only Bradford Hill’s 50-plus year old heuristic as somehow supporting the claimed identity of the two approaches)¹.

Pfizer Rebuffs WOE

Pfizer filed a comprehensive brief that unraveled the PSC’s duplicity. For unknown reasons, tactical or otherwise, however, Pfizer did not challenge the specifics of PSC’s equation of WOE with an abridged, distorted application of Bradford Hill’s considerations. See generally Opposition Brief of Defendants-Appellees Pfizer Inc., Pfizer International LLC, and Greenstone LLC [cited as Pfizer]. Perhaps given page limits and limited judicial attention spans, and just how woefully bad Jewell’s opinions were, Pfizer may well have decided that a more directed approach of assuming arguendo WOE’s methodological appropriateness was a more economical, pragmatic approach. A close reading of Pfizer’s brief, however, makes clear that it never conceded the validity of WOE as a scientific methodology.

Pfizer did point to the recasting of Jewell’s aborted attempt to apply Bradford Hill considerations as an employment of WOE methodology. Pfizer at 46-47. The argument reminded me of Abraham Lincoln’s famous argument:

“How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?

Four.

Saying that a tail is a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

Allen Thorndike Rice, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time at 242 (1909). Calling Jewell’s supposed method WOE or Bradford Hill or WOE/Bradford Hill did not cure the “fatal methodological flaws in his opinions.” Pfizer at 47.

Pfizer understandably and properly objected to the PSC’s attempt to cast Jewell’s “methodology” at such a high level of generality that any consideration of the many instances of methodological infidelity would be relegated to mere jury questions. Acquiescence in the PSC’s rhetorical move would constitute a complete abandonment of the inquiry whether Jewell had used a proper method. Pfizer at 15-16.

Interestingly, none of the amici curiae addressed the slippery WOE arguments advanced by the PSC. See generally Brief of Amici Curiae American Tort Reform Ass’n & Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (Oct. 18, 2016); Brief of Washington Legal Fdtn. as Amicus Curiae (Oct. 18, 2016). There was no meaningful discussion of WOE as a supposedly scientific methodology at oral argument. See Transcript of Oral Argument in In re Zoloft Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 16-2247 (Jan. 25, 2017).

The Third Circuit Acknowledges that Some Methodological Infelicities, Flaws, and Fallacies Are Properly the Subject of Judicial Gatekeeping

Fortunately, Jewell’s methodological infidelities were easily recognized by the Circuit judges. Jewell treated multiple studies, which were nested within one another, and thus involved overlapping and included populations, as though they were independent verifications of the same hypothesis. When the population at issue (from the Danish cohort) was included in a more inclusive pan-Scandivanian study, the relied-upon association dissipated, and Jewell utterly failed to explain or account for these data. Zoloft at 5-6.

Jewell relied upon a study by Anick Bérard, even though he later had to concede that the study had serious flaws that invalidated its conclusions, and which flaws caused him to have a lack of confidence in the paper’s findings.² In another instance, Jewell relied innocently upon a study that purported to report a statistically significant association, but the authors of this paper were later required by the journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, to correct the very calculated confidence interval upon which Jewell had relied. Despite his substantial mathematical prowess, Jewell missed the miscalculation and relied (uncritically) upon a finding as statistically significant when in fact it was not.

Jewell rejected a meta-analysis of Zoloft studies for questionable methodological quibbles, even though he had relied upon the very same meta-analysis, with the same methodology, in his litigation efforts involving Prozac and birth defects. Not to be corralled by methodological punctilio, Jewell conducted his own meta-analysis with two studies Huybrechts (2014) and Jimenez-Solem (2012), but failed to explain why he excluded other studies, the inclusion of which would have undone his claimed result. Zoloft at 9. Jewell purported to reanalyze and recalculate point estimates in two studies, Jimenez-Solem (2012) and Huybrechts (2014), without any clear protocol or consistency in his approach to other studies. Zoloft at 9. The list goes on, but in sum, Jewell’s handling of these technical issues did not inspire confidence, either in the district or in the appellate court.

WOE to the Third Circuit

The Circuit gave the PSC every conceivable break. Because Pfizer had not engaged specifically on whether WOE was a proper, or any kind of, scientific method, the Circuit treated the issue as virtually conceded:

“Pfizer does not seem to contest the reliability of the Bradford Hill criteria or weight of the evidence analysis generally; the dispute centers on whether the specific methodology implemented by Dr. Jewell is reliable. Flexible methodologies, such as the “weight of the evidence,” can be implemented in multiple ways; despite the fact that the methodology is generally reliable, each application is distinct and should be analyzed for reliability.”

Zoloft at 18. The Court acknowledged that WOE arose only in the PSC’s appellate brief, which would have made the entire dubious argument waived under general appellate jurisdictional principles, but the Court, in a footnote, indulged the assumption, “for the sake of argument,” that WOE was Jewell’s purported method from the inception. Zoloft at 18 n. 39. Without any real evidentiary support or analysis or concession from Pfizer, the Circuit accepted that WOE analyses were “generally reliable.” Zoloft at 21.

The Circuit accepted, rather uncritically, that Jewell used a combination of WOE analysis and Bradford Hill considerations. Zoloft at 17. Although Jewell had never described WOE in his litigation report, and WOE was not a feature of his hearing testimony, the Circuit impermissibly engrafted Carl Cranor’s description of WOE as involving inference to the best explanation. Zoloft at 17 & n.37, citing Milward v. Acuity Specialty Prods. Grp., Inc., 639 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

There was, however, a limit to the Circuit’s credulousness and empathy. As the Court noted, there must be some assurance that the purported Bradford Hill/WOE method is something more than a “mere conclusion-oriented selection process.” Zoloft at 20. Ultimately, the Court put its markers down for Jewell’s putative WOE methodology:

“there must be a scientific method of weighting that is used and explained.”

Zoloft at 20. Calling the method WOE did not, in the final analysis, exclude Jewell from Rule 702 gatekeeping. Try as the PSC might, there was just no mistaking Jewell’s approach as anything other than a crazy patchwork quilt of numerical wizardry in aid of subjective, result-oriented conclusion mongering.

In the Court’s words:

“we find that Dr. Jewell did not 1) reliably apply the ‘techniques’ to the body of evidence or 2) adequately explain how this analysis supports specified Bradford Hill criteria. Because ‘any step that renders the analysis unreliable under the Daubert factors renders the expert’s testimony inadmissible’, this is sufficient to show that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Jewell’s testimony.”

Zoloft at 28. As heartening as the Circuit’s conclusion is, the Court’s couching its observation as a finding (“we find”) is disheartening with respect to the Third Circuit’s apparent inability to distinguish abuse-of-discretion review from de novo appellate findings. Equally distressing is the Court’s invocation of Daubert factors, which were dicta in a Supreme Court case that was superseded by an amended statute over 17 years ago, in Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

On the crucial question whether Jewell had engaged in an unreliable application of methods or techniques that superficially, at a very high level of generality, claim to be generally accepted, the Court stayed on course. The Court “found” that Jewell had applied techniques, analyses, and critiques so obviously inconsistently that no amount of judicial indulgence, assumptions arguendo, or careless glosses could save Jewell and his fatuous opinions from judicial banishment. Zoloft 28-29. Returning to the correct standard of review (abuse of discretion), but the wrong governing law (Daubert instead of Rule 702), the Court announced that:

“[b]ecause ‘any step that renders the analysis unreliable under the Daubert factors renders the expert’s testimony inadmissible’, this is sufficient to show that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Jewell’s testimony.”

Zoloft at 21 n.50 (citation omitted). The Court found itself unable to say simply and directly that “the MDL trial court decided the case well within its discretion.”

The Zoloft case was not the Third Circuit’s first WOE rodeo. WOE had raised its unruly head in Magistrini v. One Hour Martinizing Dry Cleaning, 180 F. Supp. 2d 584, 602 (D.N.J. 2002), aff’d, 68 F. App’x 356 (3d Cir. 2003), where an expert witness, David Ozonoff, offered what purported to be a WOE opinion. The Magistrini trial court did not fuss with the assertion that WOE was generally reliable, but took issue with how Ozonoff tried to pass off his analysis as a comprehensive treatment of the totality of the evidence. In Magistrini, Judge Hochberg noted that regardless of the rubric of the methodology, the witness must show that in conducting a WOE analysis:

“all of the relevant evidence must be gathered, and the assessment or weighing of that evidence must not be arbitrary, but must itself be based on methods of science.”

Magistrini, 180 F. Supp. 2d at 602. The witness must show that the methodology is more than a “mere conclusion-oriented selection process,” and that it has a “a scientific method of weighting that is used and explained.” Id. at 607. Asserting the use of WOE was not an excuse or escape from judicial gatekeeping as specified by Rule 702.

Although the Third Circuit gave the Zoloft MDL trial court’s findings a searching review (certainly much tougher than the prescribed abuse-of-discretion review), the MDL court’s finding that Jewell “failed to consistently apply the scientific methods he articulates, has deviated from or downplayed certain well-established principles of his field, and has inconsistently applied methods and standards to the data so as to support his a priori opinion” were ultimately vindicated by the Court of Appeals. Zoloft at 10.

All’s well that ends well. Perhaps. It remains unfortunate, however, that a hypothetical method, WOE — which was never actually advocated by the challenged expert witnesses, which lacks serious support in the scientific community, and which was merely assumed arguendo to be valid — will be taken by careless readers to have been endorsed the Third Circuit.

1 Among the cases cited without any support for the PSC’s dubious contention were Gannon v. United States, 292 F. App’x 170, 173 n.1 (3d Cir. 2008); Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp., 391 F.3d 1114, 1124-25 (10th Cir. 2004); In re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 52 F.3d 1124, 1128 (2d Cir. 1995); In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2007-MD-1871, 2011 WL 13576, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2011) (“Bradford-Hill criteria are used to assess whether an established association between two variables actually reflects a causal relationship.”).

2 Anick Bérard, Sertraline Use During Pregnancy and the Risk of Major Malformations, 212 Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 795 (2015).

Posted in Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence, statistical evidence | Comments Off on WOE — Zoloft Escapes a MDL While Third Circuit Creates a Conceptual Muddle

Every Time a Bell Rings

July 1st, 2017

“Every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings.”
Zuzu Bailey

And every time a court issues a non-citable opinion, a judge breaks fundamental law. Whether it wants to or not, a common law court, in deciding a case, creates precedent, and an expectation and a right that other, similarly situated litigants will be treated similarly. Deciding a case and prohibiting its citation deprives future litigants of due process and equal protection of the law. If that makes for more citable opinions, more work for judges and litigants, so be it; that is what our constitution requires.

Back in 2015, Judge Bernstein issued a ruling in a birth defects case in which the mother had claimed to have taken sertraline during pregnancy and this medication use caused her child to be born with congenital malformations. Applying what Pennsylvania courts insist is a Frye standard, Judge Bernstein excluded the proffered expert witness testimony that attempted to draw a causal connection between the plaintiff’s birth defect and the mother’s medication use. Porter v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 03275, 2015 WL 5970639 (Phila. Cty. Pennsylvania, Ct. C.P. October 5, 2015) (Mark I. Bernstein, J.) Judge Bernstein has since left the bench, but he was and is a respected commentator on Pennsylvania evidence¹, even if he was generally known for his pro-plaintiff views on many legal issues. Bernstein’s opinion in Porter was a capable demonstration of how Pennsylvania’s Frye rule can be interpreted to reach essentially the same outcome that is required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. See “Demonstration of Frye Gatekeeping in Pennsylvania Birth Defects Case” (Oct. 6, 2015); In re Zoloft Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 16-2247 , __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 2385279 , 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9832 (3d Cir. June 2, 2017) (affirming exclusion of dodgy statistical analyses and opinions, and the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on claims that sertraline causes birth defects).

In May of this year, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Judge Bernstein’s judgment, and essentially approved and adopted his reasoning. Porter v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 3516 EDA 2015,2017 WL 1902905 (Pa. Super. May 8, 2017). What the Superior Court purport to giveth, the Superior Court taketh away. The Porter decision is franked as a “Non-Precedential Decision – See Superior Court I.O.P. 65.37.”

What is this Internal Operating Procedure that makes the Superior Court think that it can act and decide cases without creating precedent? Here is the relevant text from the Pennsylvania Code:

An unpublished memorandum decision shall not be relied upon or cited by a Court or a party in any other action or proceeding, except that such a memorandum decision may be relied upon or cited

when it is relevant under the doctrine of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel, and

when the memorandum is relevant to a criminal action or proceeding because it recites issues raised and reasons for a decision affecting the same defendant in a prior action or proceeding.

210 Pa. Code § 65.37. Unpublished Memoranda Decisions. So, in other words, it is secret law.

No citation and no precedent rules are deeply problematic, and have attracted a great deal of scholarly attention². And still, courts engage in this problematic practice. Prohibiting citation of Superior Court decisions in Pennsylvania is especially problematic in a state in which the highest court hears relatively few cases, and where the Justices involve themselves in internecine disputes. As other commentators have noted, prohibiting citation to prior decisions admitting or excluding expert witness testimony stunts the development of an area of evidence law, in which judges and litigants are often confused and in need of guidance. William E. Padgett, “‘Non-Precedential’ Unpublished Decisions in Daubert and Frye Cases, Often Silenced,” Nat’l L. Rev. (2017). The abuses of judge-made secret law from uncitable decisions has been abolished in the federal appeals courts for over a decade³. It is time for the state courts to follow suit.

1 See, e.g., Mark I. Bernstein, Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence (2017).

2 See Erica Weisgerber, “Unpublished Opinions: A Convenient Means to an Unconstitutional End,” 97 Georgetown L.J. 621 (2009); Rafi Moghadam, “Judge Nullification: A Perception of Unpublished Opinions,” 62 Hastings L.J. 1397 (2011); Norman R. Williams, “The failings of Originalism: The Federal Courts and the Power of Precedent,” 37 U.C.. Davis L. Rev.761 (2004); Dione C. Greene, “The Federal Courts of Appeals, Unpublished Decisions, and the ‘No-Citation Rule,” 81 Indiana L.J. 1503 (2006); Vincent M. Cox, “Freeing Unpublished Opinions from Exile: Going Beyond the Citation Permitted by Proposed Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1,” 44 Washburn L.J. 105 (2004); Sarah E. Ricks, “The Perils of Unpublished Non-Precedential Federal Appellate Opinions: A Case Study of The Substantive Due Process State-Created Danger Doctrine in One Circuit,” 81 Wash. L.Rev. 217 (2006); Michael J. Woodruff, “State Supreme Court Opinion Publication in the Context of Ideology and Electoral Incentives.” New York University Department of Politics (March 2011); Michael B. W. Sinclair, “Anastasoff versus Hart: The Constitutionality and Wisdom of Denying Precedential Authority to Circuit Court Decisions”; Thomas Healy, “Stare Decisis as a Constitutional Requirement,” 104 W. Va. L. Rev. 43 (2001); David R. Cleveland & William D. Bader, “Precedent and Justice,” 49 Duq. L. Rev. 35 (2011); Johanna S. Schiavoni, “Who’s Afraid of Precedent,” 49 UCLA L. Rev. 1859 (2002); Salem M. Katsh and Alex V. Chachkes, “Constitutionality of ‘No-Citation’ Rules,” 3 J. App. Prac. & Process 287 (2001); David R. Cleveland, “Appellate Court Rules Governing Publication, Citation, and Precedent of Opinions: An Update,” 16 J. App. Prac. & Process 257 (2015). See generally The Committee for the Rule of Law (website) (collecting scholarship and news on the issue of unpublished and supposedly non-precedential opinions). The problem even has its own Wikipedia page. See “Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States.”

3 See Fed. R. App. Proc. 32.1 (prohibiting federal courts from barring or limiting citation to unpublished federal court opinions, effective after Jan. 1, 2007).

Posted in Causation, Expert Witnesses, Frye, Rule 702 | Comments Off on Every Time a Bell Rings