TORTINI

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

Archives »

Reconstructing Professor Sanders on Expert Witness Gatekeeping

May 5th, 2013

Last week, I addressed two papers from a symposium organized by the litigation industry to applaud the First Circuit’s decision in Milward v. Acuity Products Group, Inc., 639 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1002 (2012).  Professor Joseph Sanders also contributed to the symposium, in a paper that is a bit more measured, scholarly, and disinterested than the other papers in the group.  Joseph Sanders, “Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group: Constructing and Deconstructing Sciences and Law in Judicial Opinion,” 3 Wake Forest J. L & Policy 141 (2013).  PDF  Still, the industry sponsor, the so-called Center for Progressive Reform, has reasons to be satisfied with the result.

Sanders argues that the Milward opinion is important because it highlights what he characterizes as a “rhetorical conflict that has been ongoing, often below the surface, since the United States Supreme Court’s 1993 opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.”  Id. at 142.  The argument is overly kind to the judiciary.  There has not been so much as a rhetorical conflict as a reactionary revolt against evidence-based decision making in the federal courts.  Milward simply represents the highwater mark of this revolt against law and science.  See, e.g., David Bernstein on the Daubert Counterrevolution (April 19, 2013).

Sanders invokes the ghost of Derrida and his black brush of deconstruction to suggest that the Daubert process is nothing more than the unraveling of the scientific enterprise, with the goal of showing that it is arbitrary and subjective.  Sanders at 143-44.  According to Sanders, radical deconstruction pushes towards a leveling of “distinctions between fact and faction … more akin to poetry and music than to evidence and argument.” Id. at 145 (citing Stephan Fuchs & Steven Ward, “What Is Deconstruction and Where and When Does It Take Place? Making Facts in Science, Building Cases in Law,” 59 Am. Soc. Rev. 481, 482-83 (1994)).

Lawyers sometimes realize the cost of radical deconstruction is a nihilism that undermines their own credibility and their ability to claim or defend factual assertions.  Sometimes, of course, lawyers ignore these considerations and talk out of both sides of their mouths. In re Welding Fume Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 1:03-CV-17000, MDL 1535, 2006 WL 4507859, *33 (N.D. Ohio 2006) (“According to plaintiffs, the rate of PD [Parkinson’s disease] mortality is so poor a proxy for measuring the rate of overall PD incidence, that the Coggon study proves nothing. In the next breath, however, plaintiffs set forth an unpublished statistical analysis (by Dr. Wells) of PD mortality data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics, arguing it proves that welders, as a group, suffer earlier onset of PD than the general population.77 Of course, the devil is in the details, discussion of which is beyond the scope of this opinion (and perhaps beyond the scope of understanding of the average juror),78 but this example shows how hard it is to tease out whether the limitations of a given study make it unreliable under Daubert.”).

Sanders gives a nod to Sheila Jasanoff, whom he quotes with apparent approval:

“[t]he adversarial structure of litigation is particularly conducive to the deconstruction of scientific facts, since it provides both the incentive (winning the lawsuit) and the formal means (cross-examination) for challenging the contingencies in their opponents’ scientific arguments.”

Sanders at 147 (quoting Shelia Jasanoff, “What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science,” 32 Jurimetrics J. 345, 348 (1992)).

With his acknowledgment that adversarial litigation of scientific issues involves  “deconstruction,” or just good, old-fashioned rhetorical excess, Sanders points to the Daubert trilogy as the Supreme Court’s measured response to the problem.

Sanders is, however, not entirely happy about the judiciary’s attempt to rein in the rhetorical excesses of adversarial litigation of scientific issues. Daubert barely scratched the surface of the scientific validity and reliability issues in the Bendectin record, but Sanders asserts that Chief Justice Rehnquist went too far in looking under the hood of the lemon that Joiner’s expert witnesses were trying to sell:

“perhaps Chief Justice Rehnquist erred in the other direction in Joiner when he systematically reviewed the animal studies and four separate epidemiological studies cited by the plaintiff as supporting the position that exposure to PCBs either caused or ‘promoted’66 the plaintiff’s lung cancer.67”

Sanders at 154.  Horrors!  A systematic review!! Perish the thought.

Sanders seems to fault the Chief Justice’s approach of picking off “one-by-one” the studies relied upon by Joiner’s expert witnesses as a deconstructive exercise.  Id. at 154 – 55.  As Sanders notes, the Court’s opinion delved into the internal and external validity of the four cited epidemiologic studies to recognize that the:

“studies did not support the plaintiff’s position because the authors of the study said there was no evidence of a relationship, the relationship was not statistically significant, the substance to which the subjects were exposed was not the same as that to which Mr. Joiner was exposed, and the subjects were simultaneously exposed to other carcinogens.70”

Id. at 155.  To be fair, not all of these were dispositive considerations, but they represent a summary of a district court’s extensive consideration of the scientific record.

Channeling Susan Haack, Sanders argues that the one-by-one approach (which Professor Green pejoratively called a “Balkanized” approach, and Sanders calls “atomistic”) ignores that a wall is made up of constituent bricks.  Sanders might have done better to study a more accomplished philosopher-scientist:

“[O]n fait la science avec des faits comme une maison avec des pierres; mais une accumulation de faits n’est pas plus une science qu’un tas de pierres n’est une maison.”

Jules Henri Poincaré, La Science et l’Hypothèse (1905) (chapter 9, Les Hypothèses en Physique)(“Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.”).  Poincaré’s metaphor is more powerful and descriptive than Sander’s because it acknowledges that interlocking pieces of evidence may cohere as a building, or they may be no more than a pile of rubble.  Deeper analysis is required. Poorly constructed walls revert to the pile of bricks from which they came.  Furthermore, the mason must look at the individual bricks to see whether they are cracked, crumbling, or crooked before building a wall that must endure. We want a wall that will endure at least long enough to stand on, or put a roof on. Much more is required than simply invoking “mosaics,” “walls from bricks,” or “crossword puzzles” to transmute a pile of studies into a “warranted” claim to knowledge. Litigants, either plaintiff or defendant, should not be allowed to pick out isolated findings in a variety of studies, and throw them together as if that were science.  This is precisely the rhetorical excess against which Rule 702, with its requirement of “knowledge,” should protect judges, juries, and litigants.

Indeed, as Sanders eventually concedes, the Joiner Court noted the appropriateness of considering the four relied-upon epidemiologic studies, individually or collectively:

“We further hold that, because it was within the District Court’s discretion to conclude that the studies upon which the experts relied were not sufficient, whether individually or in combination, to support their conclusions that Joiner’s exposure to PCB’s contributed to his cancer, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in excluding their testimony.71”

General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146-47 (1997).

Professor Sanders might have raised a justiciable argument against the gatekeeping process in Joiner if he had shown, or if he had adverted to other analyses, that the four relied-upon studies collectively meshed to overcome each other’s clear inadequacies.  The silence of Sanders, and other critics, on this score is telling.  Was Rabbi Teitelbaum (one of the Joiners’ expert witnesses) simply insightful or prescient in reading the early returns on PCBs and lung cancer?  What has happened subsequently?  Has the IARC embraced PCBs as a known cause of lung cancer?  Have well-conducted studies and meta-analyses vindicated Teitelbaum’s claims, or have they further confirmed that the gatekeeping in Joiner successfully excluded witnesses who were advancing pathologically weak, specious claims, by pushing and squeezing data until they fit into a pre-determined causal conclusions.

The complaints about judicial “deconstruction” are unfair and empty without looking at these details.  It behooves evidence scholars who want to write in this area to roll up their sleeves and look at the evidence that was in front of the courts, and to learn something about science.  Of course, scientists did not stop exploring the PCB/lung cancer hypothesis after Joiner was decided.  See, e.g, Avima Ruder, Misty Hein, Nancy Nilsen, et al., “Mortality among Workers Exposed to Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in an Electrical Capacitor Manufacturing Plant in Indiana: An Update,” 114 Envt’l Health Perspect. 18 (2006) (study by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, showing reduced rates of respiratory cancer among PCB-exposed workers, with age-standardized risk ratio of 0.85, and a 95% confidence interval, 0.6 to 1.1)

Stevens’ partial dissent in Joiner of course invested deeply in the mosaic theory, which we now know was the brainchild of plaintiffs’ counsel, Barry Nace. Michael D. Green, “Pessimism about Milward,” 3 Wake Forest J. L & Policy 41, 63 (2013) (reporting that Barry Nace acknowledged having “fed” this rhetorical device to expert witness Alan Done to support arguments for manufacturing certainty in the face of an emerging body of exonerative evidence).  Justice Stevens also cited the EPA as employing “weight of the evidence,” which simply makes the point that WOE is a precautionary approach to scientific evidence, not one for serious causal determinations.  Justice Stevens, and Professor Sanders, might have done better to have looked at what the FDA requires for health claims.  See, e.g., FDA, Guidance for industry evidence-based review system for the scientific evaluation of health claims (2009) (articulating an evidence-based approach). Justice Stevens’ argument fundamentally misconstrues the scientific enterprise of determining causation of health outcomes by reducing it to a precautionary enterprise of regulating possible harms.  Professor Sanders is unclear whether he is restating Justice Stevens’ view, or his own, when he writes:

“Chief Justice Rehnquist was wrong to show the flaws of individual bricks, because it is the wall as a whole that makes up the plaintiff’s case.74”

Sanders at 157 (citing Stevens’ opinion in Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 153n.5  (1997).  If this is Professor Sanders’ view, it is profoundly wrong.  Looking at the individual bricks is necessary to determine whether it can support the plaintiff’s case.  Of course, to the extent it was Justice Stevens’ view, it was a dissent, not a holding, and it was superseded by a statute when Rule 702 was revised in 2000.

 

Posted in Causation, Expert Witnesses, Rule 702 | Comments Off on Reconstructing Professor Sanders on Expert Witness Gatekeeping

Milward’s Singular Embrace of Comment C

May 4th, 2013

Professor Michael D. Green is one of the Reporters for the American Law Institute’s Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm.   Green has been an important interlocutor in the on-going debate and discussion over standards for expert witness opinions.  Although many of his opinions are questionable, his writing is clear, and his positions, transparent.  The seduction of Professor Green and the Wake Forest School of Law by one of the litigation-industry’s organizations, the Center for Progressive Reform, is unfortunate, but the resulting symposium gave Professor Green an opportunity to speak and write about the justly controversial comment c.   Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 28, cmt. c (2010).

Mock Pessimism Over Milward

Professor Green professes to be pessimistic about the Milward decision, but his only real ground for pessimism is that Milward will not be followed.  Michael D. Green, “Pessimism about Milward,” 3 Wake Forest J. L & Policy 41 (2013).  Green describes the First Circuit’s decision in Milward as “fresh,” “virtually unique and sophisticated,” and “satisfying.” Id. at 41, 43, and 50.  Green describes his own reaction to the decision in terms approaching ecstasy:  “delighted,” “favorable,” and “elation.”  Id. at 42, 42, and 43.

Green interprets Milward to embrace four comment c propositions:

  1. “Recognizing that judgment and interpretation are required in assessments of causation.52
  2. Endorsing explicitly and taking seriously weight of the evidence methodology,53 against the great majority of federal courts that had, since Joiner, employed a Balkanized approach to assessing different pieces of evidence bearing on causation.54
  3. Appreciating that because no algorithm exists to constrain the inferential process, scientists may reasonably reach contrary conclusions.55
  4. Not only stating, but taking seriously, the proposition that epidemiology demonstrating the connection between plaintiff’s disease and defendant’s harm is not required for an expert to testify on causation.56 Many courts had stated that idea, but very few had found non-epidemiologic evidence that satisfied them.57”

Id. at 50-51.

Green’s points suggest that comment c was designed to reinject a radical subjectivism into scientific judgments allowed to pass for expert witness opinions in American courts.  None of the points is persuasive.  Point (1) is vacuous.  Saying that judgment is necessary does not imply that anything goes or that we will permit the expert witness to be the judge of whether his opinion rises to the level of scientific knowledge.  The required judgment involves an exacting attention to the role of random error, bias, or confounding in producing an apparent association, as well as to the validity of the data, methods, and analyses used to interpret observational or experimental studies.  The required judgment involves an appreciation that not all studies are equally weighty, or equally worthy of consideration for use in reaching causal knowledge.  Some inferences are fatally weak or wrong; some analyses or re-analyses of data are incorrect.  Not all judgments can be blessed by anointing some of them “subjective.”

Point (2) illustrates how far the Restatement process has wondered into the radical terrain of abandoning gatekeeping altogether.  The approach that Green pejoratively calls “Balkanized” is a careful look at what expert witnesses have relied upon to assess whether their conclusions or claims follow from their relied upon sources.  This is the approach used by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working groups, whose method Green seems to endorse.  Id. at 59.  IARC working groups discuss and debate their inclusionary and exclusionary criteria for studies to be considered, and the validity of each study and its analyses, before they get to an assessment of the entire evidentiary display.  (And several of the IARC working groups have been by no means free of the conscious bias and advocacy that Green sees in party-selected expert witnesses.)  Elsewhere, Green refers to the approach of most federal courts as “corpuscular.”  Id. at 51. Clearly, expert witnesses want to say things in court that do not, so to speak, add up, but Green appears to want to give them all a pass.

Point (3) is, at best, a half truth.  Is Green claiming that reasonable scientists always disagree?  His statement of the point suggests epistemiologic nihilism. Although there are no clear algorithms, the field of science is littered with abandoned and unsuccessful theories from which we can learn when to be skeptical or dismissive of claims and conclusions.  Certainly there are times when reasonable experts will disagree, but there are also times when experts on one side or the other, or both, are overinterpreting or misinterpreting the available evidence.  The judicial system has the option and the obligation to withhold judgments when faced with sparse or inconsistent data.  In many instances, litigation arises because the scientific issues are controversial and unsettled, and the only reasonable position is to look for more evidence, or to look more carefully at the extant evidence.

Point (4) is similarly overblown and misguided.  Green states his point as though epidemiology will never be required.  Here Green’s sympathies betray any sense of fidelity to law or science.  Of course, there may be instances in which epidemiologic evidence will not be necessary, but it is also clear that sometimes only epidemiologic methods can establish the causal claim with any meaningful degree of epistemic warrant.

ANECDOTES TO LIVE BY

Anthony Robbins’ Howler

Professor Green delightfully shares two important anecdotes.  Both are revealing of the process that led up to comment c, and to Milward.

The first anecdote involves the 2002 meeting of the American Law Institute.  Apparently someone thought to invite Dr. Anthony Robbins as a guest. (Green does not tell us who performed this subversive act.)  Robbins is a member of SKAPP, the organization started with plaintiffs’ counsel’s slush fund money diverted from MDL 926, the silicone-gel breast implant litigation.

Robbins rose at the meeting to chastise the ALI for not knowing what it was talking about:

“clear, in my opinion, misstatements of . . . science” or reflected a misunderstanding of scientific principles that “leaves everyone in doubt as to whether you know what you are talking about . . . .”

Id. at 44 (quoting from 79th Annual Meeting, 2002 A.L.I. PROC. at 294).  Pretty harsh, except that Professor Green proceeds to show that it was Robbins who had no idea of what he was talking about.

Robbins asserted that the requirement of a relative risk of greater than two was scientifically incorrect. From Green’s telling of the story, it is difficult to understand whether Robbins was complaining about the use of relative risks (greater than two) for inferring general or specific causation.  If the former, there is some truth to his point, but Robbins would be wrong as to the latter.  Many scientists have opined that relative risks provide information about attributable fractions, which in turn permit inferences about individual cases.  See, e.g., Troyen A. Brennan, “Can Epidemiologists Give Us Some Specific Advice?” 1 Courts, Health Science & the Law 397, 398 (1991) (“This indeterminancy complicates any case in which epidemiological evidence forms the basis for causation, especially when attributable fractions are lower than 50%.  In such cases, it is more probable than not that the individual has her illness as a result of unknown causes, rather than as a result of exposure to hazardous substance.”).  Others have criticized the inference, but usually on the basis that the inference requires that the risk be stochastically distributed in the population under consideration, and we often do not know whether this assumption is true.  Of course, the alternative is that we must stand mute in the face of even very large relative risks and established general causation.  See, e.g., McTear v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., [2005] CSOH 69, at ¶ 6.180 (Nimmo Smith, L.J.) (“epidemiological evidence cannot be used to make statements about individual causation… . Epidemiology cannot provide information on the likelihood that an exposure produced an individual’s condition.  The population attributable risk is a measure for populations only and does not imply a likelihood of disease occurrence within an individual, contingent upon that individual’s exposure.”).

Robbins second point was truly a howler, one that suggests his animus against gatekeeping may grow out of a concern that he would never pass a basic test of statistical competency.  According to Green, Robbins claimed that “increasing the number of subjects in an epidemiology study can identify small effects with ‘an almost indisputable causal role’.” Id. at 45 (quoting Robbins).  Ironically, lawyer and law professor Green was left to take Robbins to school, to educate him on the differences between sampling error, bias, and confounding.  Green does not get the story completely right because he draws an artificial line between observational epidemiology and experimental clinical trials, and incorrectly implies that bias and confounding are problems only in observational studies.  Id. at 45 n. 24.  Although randomization is undertaken in clinical trials to control for bias and confounding, it is not true that this strategy always works or always works completely.  Still, here we have a lawyer delivering the comeuppance to the scolding scientist.  Sometimes scientists really have no good basis to support their claims, and it is the responsibility of the courts to say so.  Green’s handling of Robbins’ errant views is actually a wonderful demonstration of gatekeeping in action.  What is lovely about it is that the claims and their rebuttal were documented and reported, rather than being swept away in the fog of a jury verdict.

Professor Green’s account of Robbins’ foolery should be troubling because, despite Robbins’ manifest errors, and his more covert biases, we learn that Robbins’ remarks had “a profound impact” on the ALI’s deliberations. Courts that are tempted by the facile answers of comment c should find this impact profoundly disturbing.

Alan Done’s Weight of the Evidence (WOE) or Mosaic Methodology

Professor Green relays an anecdote that bears repeating, many times.  In the Bendectin litigation, plaintiffs’ expert witness, Alan Done testified that Bendectin caused birth defects in children of mothers who ingested the anti-nausea medication during pregnancy.  Done had a relatively easy time spinning his speculative web in the first Bendectin trial because there was only one epidemiologic study, which qualitatively was not very good.  In his second outing, Done was confronted by the defense with an emerging body of exonerative epidemiologic research. In response, he deployed his “mosaic theory” of evidence, of different pieces or lines of evidence that singularly do not show much, but together paint a conclusive picture of the causal pattern. Id. at 61 (describing Done’s use of structure-activity, in vitro animal studies, in vivo animal studies, and his own [idiosyncratic] interpretation of the epidemiologic studies).  Done called his pattern a “mosaic,” which Green correctly sees is none other than “weight of the evidence.”  Id. at 62.

After this second trial was won with the jury, but lost on post-trial motions, plaintiffs’ counsel, Barry Nace, pressed the mosaic theory as a legitimate scientific strategy to demonstrate causation, and the appellate court accepted the strategem:

“Like the pieces of a mosaic, the individual studies showed little or nothing when viewed separately from one another, but they combined to produce a whole that was greater than the sum of its parts: a foundation for Dr. Done’s opinion that Bendectin caused appellant’s birth defects. The evidence also established that Dr. Done’s methodology was generally accepted in the field of teratology, and his qualifications as an expert have not been challenged.103”

Id. at 61(citing Oxendine v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 506 A.2d 1100, 1110 (D.C. 1986).  Green then drops his bombshell:  the philosopher of science who developed the “mosaic theory” (WOE) was the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Barry Nace. According to Green, Nace declared the mosaic idea “Damn brilliant, and I was the one who thought of it and fed it to Alan [Done].”  Id. at 63.

Green attempts to reassure himself that Milward does not mean that Done could use his WOE approach to testify today that Bendectin causes human birth defects.  Id. at 63.  Alas, he provides no meaningful solution to protect against future bogus cases.  Green fails to come to grips with the obvious truth that Done was wrong ab initio.  He was wrong before he was exposed for his perjurious testimony.  See id. at 62 n. 107, and he was wrong before there was a “solid body” of exonerative epidemiology.  His method never had the epistemic warrant he claimed for it, and the only thing that changed over time was a greater recognition of his character for veracity, and the emergence of evidence that collectively supported the null hypothesis of no association.  The defense, however, never had the burden to show that Done’s methodology was unreliable or invalid, and we should look to the more discerning scientists who saw through the smokescreen from the beginning.

Posted in Causation, Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on Milward’s Singular Embrace of Comment C

I Don’t See Any Method At All

May 2nd, 2013

Kurtz: Did they say why, Willard, why they want to terminate my command?
Willard: I was sent on a classified mission, sir.
Kurtz: It’s no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you?
Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don’t see any method at all, sir.
Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
Willard: I’m a soldier.
Kurtz: You’re neither. You’re an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

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

The Royal Society, the National Academies of Science, the Nobel Laureates have nothing on the organized plaintiffs’ bar.  Consider the genius and the accomplishments of these men and women.  They have discovered and built a perpetual motion machine — the asbestos litigation.  They have learned how to violate the law of non-contradiction with impunity (e.g., industry is evil, and (litigation) industry is good).  In the realm of the sciences, especially as applied in the courtroom, they have demonstrated the falsity of one of core beliefs: ex nihilo nihil fit.  We have a lot to learn from the plaintiffs’ bar.

WOE to Corporate America

Steve Baughman Jensen is a plaintiffs’ lawyer and he justifiably gloats over his success as lead counsel in Milward v. Acuity Products Group, Inc., 639 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1002 (2012).  In a recent article for the litigation industry’s scholarly journal, Jensen touts Milward as Ariadne’s thread, which will take plaintiffs out of the mazes and traps set for them by the benighted law of expert witnesses.  Steve Baughman Jensen, “Reframing the Daubert Issue in Toxic Tort Cases,” 49 Trial 46 (Feb. 2013).  Jensen alleged that his client worked with solvents that contained varying amounts of  benzene, which caused him to develop Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia (APL), a subtype of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML).  The district court excluded plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ causation opinions; the First Circuit reversed.  Jensen crows about his accomplished feat.

Weight of the Evidence (WOE) — Let Them Drink Ripple

Jensen, with help from philosopher of popular science Carl Cranor and toxicologist Martyn Smith persuaded the appellate court that a “weight of the evidence” (WOE) analysis necessarily involves scientific judgment. (Millward, 639 F.3d at 18), and that this “use of judgment in the weight of the evidence methodology is similar to that in differential diagnosis, which we have repeatedly found to be a reliable method of medical diagnosis.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

Is this what judicial gatekeeping of scientific expert opinion has come to?  Phrenology, homeopathy, aroma therapy, and reflexology involve medical judgment, of sorts, and so they too are now reliable methodologies.  Ripple makes red wine, and so does Chateau Margaux.  Chateau Margaux is based upon judgment in oenology, and so is Ripple.  That only one of these products will stand the test of time is irrelevant; both are the product of oenological judgment.  It’s all a question of the weight you would assign the differing qualities of Ripple and a premier cru bordeaux.

Jensen never defines WOE; the closest he comes to describing WOE is to tell us that it essentially involves a delegation to expert witnesses to validate their own subjective weighing of the evidence. As in the King of Hearts, Jensen rejoices that the inmates are now running the asylum.

Too Much of Nothing

Jensen complains about a “divide and conquer” strategy by which defendants take individual studies, one at a time, pronounce them inadequate to support a judgment of causality, and then claim that the aggregate evidence fails to support causality as well.  Surely sometimes that approach is misguided; yet sometimes the evidentiary display collectively represents “too much of nothing.”  In some litigations, there are hundreds of studies, which despite their numbers, still fail to support causation.  In General Electric v. Joiner, the Supreme Court discerned that the studies relied upon were largely irrelevant or inconclusive, and that taken alone or together, the cited studies failed to support plaintiffs’ claim of causality.  In the silicone-gel breast implant litigation, the plaintiffs’ steering committee submitted banker boxes of studies and argument to the court’s appointed expert witnesses, in an attempt to manufacture causation.  The committee, however, took its time and saw that the evidence taken individually or collectively did not amount to a scientific peppercorn.

Let Ignorance Rule

One of Jensen’s clever attempts to beguile the judiciary involves the transmutation of scientific inference into personal credibility.  “Second-guessing an expert’s application of scientific judgment necessarily requires assessing that expert’s credibility, which is the jury’s role.” Jensen, 49 Trial at 49.  Jensen attempts to reduce the “battle of experts” to a credibility contest and thus outside the purview of judicial gatekeeping.  His argument conflates credibility with methodology and its application. Because the expert witness will predictably opine that he applied the methodology faithfully, Jensen asserts that the court is barred from examining the correctness of the expert witness’s self-validation.

But scientific inference is scientific because it does not depend upon the person drawing it.  The inference may be weak, strong, erroneous, valid, or invalid.  How we characterize the inference will turn on the data and their analysis, not on the witness’s say so.

Jensen cites comment c, to Section 28 of Restatement (Third) of Torts, as supporting his reactionary arguments for abandoning judicial gatekeeping of expert witness opinion testimony.  “Juries, not judges, should determine the validity of two competing expert opinions, both of which typically fall within the realm of reasonable science.” Jensen, 49 Trial at 51 (emphasis added).  The law, however, requires trial courts to assess the validity vel non of would-be testifying expert witnesses:

“[A] trial judge, acting as ‘gatekeeper’, must ‘ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable’.  This requirement will sometimes ask judges to make subtle and sophisticated determinations about scientific methodology and its relation to the conclusions an expert witness seeks to offer— particularly when a case arises in an area where the science itself is tentative or uncertain, or where testimony about general risk levels in human beings or animals is offered to prove individual causation.”

General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 147–49 (1997) (Breyer, J., concurring) (citations omitted).  Not only is Jensen’s argument contrary to the law, the argument is based upon a cynical understanding that juries will usually have little time, experience, or aptitude for assessing  validity issues, and that delegating validity issues to juries ensures that the legal system will not be able to root out pathologically weak evidence and inferences. The resolution of validity issues will be hidden behind the secretive walls of the jury room, rather than in the open sight of reasoned, published opinions, subject to public and scholarly commentary.   See, e.g., In re Welding Fume Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 1:03-CV-17000, MDL 1535, 2006 WL 4507859, *33 n.78 (N.D. Ohio 2006).  (“even the smartest and most attentive juror will be challenged by the parties’ assertions of observation bias, selection bias, information bias, sampling error, confounding, low statistical power, insufficient odds ratio, excessive confidence intervals, miscalculation, design flaws, and other alleged shortcomings of all of the epidemiological studies.”)

Martyn Smith

Jensen extols the achievements of Dr. Martyn Smith, his expert witness who was excluded by the trial court in Milward.  A disinterested reader might mistakenly think that Smith was among the leading benzene researchers in the world, but a little Googling would turn up that Milward was not his first litigation citation.  Smith has been pulled over for outrunning his expert-witness headlights in several other litigations, including:

  • Jacoby v. Rite Aid, Phila. Cty. Ct. Common Pleas (Order of April 27, 2012; Opinion of April 12, 2012) (excluding Smith as an expert witness on the toxicity of Fix-o-Dent)
  • In re Baycol Prods. Litig., 495 F. Supp.2d 977 (D. Minn. 2007)
  • In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL 1348, 441 F.Supp.2d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)(“silent injury”)

None of these other cases involved benzene, but they all involved speculative opinions.

The Milward Symposium

Jensen took another victory lap at the Milward Symposium Organized By Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Witnesses.  The presentations from this symposium have now appeared in print:  Wake Forest Publishes the Litigation Industry’s Views on Milward.  See Steve Baughman Jensen, “Sometimes Doubt Doesn’t Sell:  A Plaintiffs’ Lawyer’s Perspective on Milward v. Acuity Products,” 3 Wake Forest J. L. & Policy 177 (2013).  Jensen’s contribution was mostly a shrill ad hominem against corporations, as well as their lawyers and scientists who complicitly support an alleged campaign to manufacture doubt.

Perhaps someday the law journal’s faculty advisors and editors will feel some embarrassment over the lack of balance and scholarship in Jensen’s contribution to the symposium.  Corporations are bad; get it?  They manufacture doubt about the litigation industry’s enterprise.  Don’t pay attention to massive litigation fraud, such as faux silicosis, faux asbestosis, faux fen-phen heart disease, faux product identification, etc.  See Larry Husten, “79-Year-Old Cardiologist Sentenced To 6 Years In Prison For Fen-Phen Fraud,” Forbes (Mar. 27, 2013).   Forget that ATLA/AAJ is one of the most powerful rent-seeking lobbies in the United States.  Litigants have a constitutional right to extrapolate as they please.  If a substance causes one disease at a very high dose, then it causes every ailment known to mankind at moderate or low doses.  Specific disease entails general disease, etc.  What you balk?  You must be a doubt mongerer.

Jensen assures us that many scientists support and agree with Martyn Smith, both in his methodology and in his conclusions.  Jensen’s articles are sketchy on details, and of course, the devil is in the details.  See Amended Amicus Curiae Brief of the Council for Education and Research on Toxins et al., In Support of Appellants, in Milward.  This Council seems to fly under the internet radar, but I suspect that its membership and that of the Center for Progressive Reform overlaps somewhat.

Jensen’s article is just one of several published in the Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy.  Let’s hope the remaining articles have more substance to them.

Posted in Causation, Expert Witnesses, Rule 702 | Comments Off on I Don’t See Any Method At All

Wake Forest Publishes the Litigation Industry’s Views on Milward

April 20th, 2013

This week, The Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy published six articles from its 2012 Spring Symposium, on “Toxic Tort Litigation After Milward v. Acuity Products.”  The Symposium was a joint production of The Center for Progressive Reform and the Wake Forest University School of Law.  The articles are now available online:

Steve C. Gold, “A Fitting Vision of Science for the Courtroom” PDF

Michael D. Green, “Pessimism About Milward” PDF

Thomas O. McGarity & Sidney A. Shapiro, “Regulator Science in Rulemaking and Tort: Unifying the Weight of the Evidence Approach,” PDF

Carl F. Cranor, “Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products: Advances in General Causation Testimony in Toxic Tort Litigation,” PDF

Joseph Sanders , “Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group: Constructing and Deconstructing Sciences and Law in Judicial Opinion,” PDF

Steve Baughman Jensen, “Sometimes Doubt Doesn’t Sell: A Plaintiffs’ Lawyer’s Perspective on Milward v. Acuity Products” PDF

As I noted previously, this symposium was a decidedly lopsided affair, as one might expect from its sponsorship by The Center for Progressive Reform (CPR), which speaks for the litigation industry in the United States. See “Milward Symposium Organized By Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Witnesses” (Feb. 16th, 2013).

Consistent with its sponsorship, the articles are largely cheerleading for the Milward decision.  The Milward plaintiffs’ partisan expert, Carl Cranor, has a paper here, as does a plaintiffs’ lawyer prominent in ATLA/AAJ.  The defense expert witnesses from Milward were not represented at the symposium in the symposium proceedings; nor were there any papers from defense counsel presented or published.  Of the six published papers, only Professor Sanders adopts a somewhat neutral stance towards Milward and the First Circuit’s embrace of Weight of the Evidence in analyzing Rule 702 issues. Cf. Elizabeth Laposata, Richard Barnes, & Stanton Glantz, “Tobacco Industry Influence on the American Law Institute’s Restatements of Torts and Implications for Its Conflict of Interest Policies,” 98 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (2012) (arguing that tobacco lawyers influenced the American Law Institute’s Restatement process).

Posted in Conflicts of Interest, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on Wake Forest Publishes the Litigation Industry’s Views on Milward

David Bernstein on the Daubert Counterrevolution

April 19th, 2013

David Bernstein has posted a draft of an important new article on the law of expert witnesses, in which he documents the widespread resistance to judicial gatekeeping of expert witness opinion testimony among federal judges.  Bernstein, “The Daubert Counterrevolution” (Mar. 11, 2013).  Professor Bernstein has posted his draft article, set to be published in the Notre Dame Law Review, both on the Social Science Research Network, and on his law school’s website.

Professor Bernstein correctly notes that the Daubert case, and the subsequent revision to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, marked important changes in the law of expert witnesses.  These changes constituted important reforms, which in my view were as much evolutionary, as revolutionary.  Even before the Daubert case, the law was working to find ways to improve expert witness testimony, and to downplay “authoritative” opining in favor of well-documented ways of knowing.  After all, Rule 702, with its emphasis on “knowledge,” was part of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as adopted in 1975.  Pub. L. 93–595, § 1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1926 (effective July 1, 1975).  Since their first adoption, Rule 702 required that expert witnesses’ knowledge be helpful to the trier of fact.  By implication, the rule has always suggested that hunches, speculation, and flights of fancy did not belong in the court room.

Professor Bernstein certainly acknowledges that Daubert did not spring out of a vacuum.  Critics of judicial decisions on expert witnesses had agitated for decades to limit expert witness conduct by standards and guidances that operate in the scientific community itself.  The Supreme Court’s serial opinions on Rule 702 (Daubert, Joiner, Kumho Tire, and Weisgram) reflect the need for top-down enforcement of a rule, on the books since 1975, while many lower courts were allowing “anything goes.”

What is perhaps surprising, but well documented by Professor Bernstein, is that after four opinions from the Supreme Court, and a revision in the operative statute itself (Rule 702), some lower federal courts have engaged in a rearguard action against expert witness gatekeeping.  Professor Bernstein rightfully settles on the First Circuit’s decision in Milward as exemplifying a trend to disregard the statutory language and mandate for gatekeeping.  For Bernstein, Milward represents the most recent high-water mark of counterrevolution, with its embrace of errors and fallacies in the name of liberal, if not libertine, admissibility.

I suppose that I would go a step further than Professor Bernstein and label the trend he identifies as “reactionary.”  What is clear is that many courts have been willing to flout the statutory language of Rule 702, in favor of old case law, and evasive reasoning on expert witness admissibility.  Indeed, the Supreme Court itself joined the trend in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 131 S. Ct. 1309 (2011), when it unanimously affirmed the reversal of a trial court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a securities fraud class action.  The corporate defendant objected that the plaintiffs failed to plead statistical significance in alleging causation between Zicam and the loss of the sense of smell.  The Supreme Court, however, made clear that causation was not required to make out a claim of securities fraud.  It was, and would be, sufficient for the company’s product to have raised sufficient regulatory concerns, which in turn would bring regulatory scrutiny and action that would affect the product’s marketability.

Not content to resolve a relatively simple issue of materiality, for which causation and statistical significance were irrelevant, the Supreme Court waxed on, in obiter dicta, about causation and statistical significance, perhaps unwittingly planting seeds for those who would eviscerate Rule 702.  See Matrixx Unloaded (Mar. 29, 2011).  Although the Supreme Court disclaimed any intention to address expert witness admissibility in a case that was solely about the sufficiency of pleading allegations, it cited three cases for the proposition that statistical significance was not necessary for assessing biological causation:

“We note that courts frequently permit expert testimony on causation based on evidence other than statistical significance. See, e.g., Best v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 563 F. 3d 171, 178 (6th Cir 2009); Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F. 3d 257, 263–264 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing cases); Wells v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 788 F. 2d 741, 744–745 (11th Cir. 1986). We need not consider whether the expert testimony was properly admitted in those cases, and we do not attempt to define here what constitutes reliable evidence of causation.”

Id. at 1319.

Remarkably, two of the three cases were about specific causation, arrived at using so-called “differential etiology,” which presupposed the establishment of general causation.  These cases never involved general causation or statistical reasoning, but rather simply the process of elimination (iterative disjunctive syllogism).  The citation to the third case, Wells, was a notorious pre-Daubert, pre-Rule 702 revision case, revealed disappointing scholarship.  Wells involved at least one study that purported to find a statistically significant association.  What was problematic about Wells was its failure to consider the complete evidentiary picture, and to evaluate study validity, bias, and confounding, as well as significance probability.  See Wells v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. Reconsidered – Part 1 (Nov. 12, 2012).

Wells was an important precursor to Daubert in that it brought notoriety and disrepute to how federal courts (and state courts as well) were handling expert witness evidence.  Significantly, Wells was a bench trial, where the trial judge opined that plaintiffs’ expert witnesses seemed more credible based upon atmospherics rather than on their engagement with the actual evidence. See Marc S. Klein, “After Daubert:  Going Forward with Lessons from the Past,” 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 2219, 2225-26 (1994) (quoting trial testimony of trial testimony of Dr. Bruce Buehler: “I am sorry sir, I am not a statistician . . . I don’t understand confidence levels. I never use them. I have to use the author’s conclusions.” Transcript of Jan. 9, 1985, at 358, Wells v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 615 F. Supp. 262 (N.D. Ga. 1985).

Given the Supreme Court’s opinion in Matrixx, the reactionary movement among lower courts is unsurprising.  Lower courts have now cited and follow the Matrixx dicta on statistical significance in expert witness gatekeeping, despite the Supreme Court’s clear pronouncement that it did not intend to address Rule 702.  See In re Chantix (Varenicline) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130144, at *22 (N.D. Ala. 2012); Cheek v. Wyeth Pharm. Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123485 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2012).

Professor Bernstein’s article goes a long way towards documenting the disregard for law and science in this movement.  The examples of reactionary decisions could easily be multiplied. Take for instance, the recent Rule 702 gatekeeping decision in litigation over Celexa and Lexapro, two antidepressant medications.  Judge Rodney W. Sippel denied the defense motions to exclude plaintiffs’ principal expert witness, Dr. David Healy.  In re Celexa & Lexapro Prods. Liab. Litig.,  ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 791780 (E.D. Mo. 2013).  In attempting to support its decision, the court announced that:

1. Cherry picking of studies, and data within studies, is acceptable for expert witnesses.  Id. at *5, *7, *8.

2. Outdated law applies, regardless of being superseded by later Supreme Court decisions, and the statutory revision in Rule 702.  Id. at *2 (citing pre-Joiner case:   “The exclusion of an expert’s opinion is proper only if it is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer no assistance to the jury.” Wood v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 112 F.3d 306, 309 (8th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).”

3.  The Bradford Hill factors can be disregarded.  Id. at *6 (citing In re Neurontin Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prod. Liab. Litig., 612 F. Supp. 2d 116, 133 (D. Mass. 2009) (MDL 1629), and In re Viagra, 572 F.2d 1071 (D. Minn. 2008)).

These features of the Celexa decision are hardly novel.  As Professor Bernstein shows in his draft article, disregard of Rule 702’s actual language, and of the post-Daubert Supreme Court decisions, is prevalent.  See, e.g., In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Prod. Liab. Litig., 2011 WL 13576 (E.D. Pa. 2011)(announcing that MDL district judge was bound to apply a “Third Circuit” approach to expert witness gatekeeping, which focused on the challenged expert witnesses’ methodology, not their conclusions, in contravention of Joiner, and of Rule 702 itself).

The Celexa decision pushes the envelope on Bradford Hill.  The two decisions cited downplayed Bradford Hill’s considerations, but did not dismiss them.  In re Neurontin Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prod. Liab. Litig., 612 F. Supp. 2d 116, 133 (D. Mass. 2009) (MDL 1629)(“Although courts have not embraced the Bradford Hill criteria as a litmus test of general causation, both parties repeatedly refer to the criteria, seemingly agreeing that it is a useful launching point and guide. Accordingly, this Court will begin its inquiry by evaluating Plaintiffs’ evidence of an association between Neurontin and suicide-related events, the starting point for an investigation under the criteria.”);  In re Viagra Prods. Liab. Litig., 572 F.Supp.2d at 1081 (“The Court agrees that the Bradford Hill criteria are helpful for determining reliability but rejects Pfizer’s suggestion that any failure to satisfy those criteria provides independent grounds for granting its Daubert Motion.”).

Of course, Sir Austin’s considerations were merely those that he identified in a speech to a medical society.  They were not put forward in a scholarly article; nor are his considerations the last word on the subject.  Austin Bradford Hill, “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?” 58 Proc. Royal Soc’y Med. 295 (1965).

Even as a précis, given almost 50 years ago, Hill’s factors warrant some consideration rather than waving them off as not a litmus test (whatever that means), followed by complete disregard for any of the important considerations in evaluating the causality of an association.

There was brief bright spot in this fairly dim judicial decision.  The district judge refused to exclude Dr. Healy on grounds that his opinion about particular studies differed from the authors’ own interpretations.  In re Celexa & Lexapro Prods. Liab. Litig.,  ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 791780, at *5 (E.D. Mo. 2013) (Sippel, J.).

That is the correct approach, even though there is language in Joiner that suggests that the authors’ views are dominant.  See Follow the Data Not the Discussion.  But the refusal to discount Healy’s opinions on this ground was done without any real inquiry whether Healy had offered a valid, competing interpretation of the data in the published studies.

At the core of the reactionary movement identified by Professor Bernstein is an unwillingness, or an inability, to engage with the scientific evidence that is at issue in various Rule 702 challenges.  Let’s hope that Bernstein’s article induces closer attention to the law and the science in future judicial gatekeeping.

Posted in Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Scientific Evidence | Comments Off on David Bernstein on the Daubert Counterrevolution

Washington Supreme Court Illustrates the Difference Between Frye and Rule 702

April 15th, 2013

Last month, the Washington Supreme Court decided a public and private nuisance case against a local utility for fear of future illnesses from exposure to electro-magnetic frequency radiation (EMF).  Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc., ___ Wn. 2d ___ , 2013 WL 865468 (Mar. 6, 2013).

The defendant utility and local municipality had moved for the exclusion of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, under Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923), and the Washington state version of Rule 702.  The plaintiff homeowners submitted declarations from two expert witnesses, Dr. De Kun Li and and Dr. David Carpenter.

Dr. Carpenter was the Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany and a Professor of Environmental Health Sciences within the School of Public Health. He also has held the position of Dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Albany and the Director of the Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research of the New York State Department of Health.  Dr. Carpenter apparently has been active in testifying about EMF health issues.  See, e.g., Amended Declaration of David Carpenter (2011).

The trial court conducted a three-day Frye hearing, at which both sides offered expert witness testimony.  Plaintiffs called Carpenter, and the defendants called Dr. Nancy Lee, an epidemiologist, and Dr. Mark Israel, a professor at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, and a specialist in the molecular and cellular biology of brain tumors.

At the hearing, Dr. Lee testified that Carpenter had failed to follow generally accepted epidemiologic methodology of considering all pertinent data.  Carpenter had “cherry picked”; his opinion selectively ignored studies that contradicted his conclusions.  Even among the studies that Carpenter had relied upon, he ignored data that undermined or contradicted his conclusion.  Slip op. at 6.  Furthermore, Carpenter ignored the toxicologic data and studies available. Id.  Among the studies ignored by Carpenter were the most recent, and most carefully conducted, studies. Id.  The trial court excluded Li and Carpenter, and the plaintiffs appealed.

Affirming the exclusion, the Supreme Court of Washington engaged in a curious two step.  The Court reversed the trial court’s exclusion on Frye grounds.  In Supreme Court’s view, the plaintiffs’ witnesses sufficiently deployed a generally accepted method when they waded into the field of epidemiology because epidemiology is generally accepted.  The Frye doctrine does not require that expert witnesses apply the established methodology well, reliably, or soundly.  The expert witnesses are immunized from exclusion by relying upon studies from a generally accepted discipline, no matter how poorly or selectively they have analyzed and interpreted these studies.  An expert witness’s errors in engaging with a particular scientific discipline that is in general considered generally accepted “go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence unless the error renders the evidence unreliable.” Slip op. at 11.

Carpenter’s cherry-picking approach to data and studies, however, was properly excluded under Rule 702.  Carpenter’s approach vitiated the reliability of his opinion with the consequence of :

“seriously tainting his conclusions because epidemiology is an iterative science relying on later studies to refine earlier studies in order to reach better and more accurate conclusions. Carpenter refused to account for the data from the toxicological studies, which epidemiological methodology requires unless the evidence for the link between exposure and disease is unequivocal and strong, which is not the case here. Carpenter also selectively sampled data within one of the studies he used, taking data indicating an EMF-illness link and ignoring the larger pool of data within the study that showed no such link, Carpenter’s treatment of this data created an improper false impression about what the study actually showed.”

Slip op. at 12.

So that’s the difference between Frye and Rule 702!

Posted in Expert Witnesses, Frye, Rule 702 | Comments Off on Washington Supreme Court Illustrates the Difference Between Frye and Rule 702

Further Musings on U.S. v. Harkonen

April 15th, 2013

Epistemic Crimes

In U.S. v. Harkonen, the government prosecuted a physician, company CEO, for issuing a press release that stated a clinical trial “demonstrated” benefit when the government believed that the clinical trial was inconclusive.  No doubt the government was intent upon punishing what it thought was off-label promotion in the same press release, but the jury acquitted on the charge of misbranding, and convicted on the wire fraud count.  The trial court denied post-trial motions, and recently, the United States Court of Appeals, for the Ninth Circuit, affirmed, in an unpublished per curiam opinion.  United States v. Harkonen, No. 11-10209, No. 11-10242, 2013 WL 782354, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4472 (9th Cir. March 4, 2013).

A Gedanken Experiment

An expert witness writes a report that X, a drug therapy, causes Y, a benefit in survival, for a disease, Z.

The expert witness sent his report by email, and regular mail, to counsel, who then served it upon his adversary.  The report set out some of the support for the opinion, as follows.

The expert witness relied upon a randomized clinical trial, conducted with one primary and nine secondary endpoints.  The multiple endpoints were chosen because of uncertainty of how the anticipated benefit would manifest.  Mortality (survival), although obviously a very important endpoint, was not made primary endpoint because the scientists who conducted the trial did not anticipate sufficient deaths over the course of the trials to see a statistically significant benefit.

This clinical trial had surprising results. Although the trial did not show a difference on the primary endpoint, a composite defined in terms of various pulmonary functional changes or death, the trial did “demonstrate,” according to the witness, a survival benefit.  Indeed, the survival benefit was clinically significant.  Patients randomized to therapy experienced a 40% decrease in mortality, compared to those randomized to placebo. (p = 0.084).  The expert witness pointed out, in his report, that the survival benefit was even stronger in a subgroup of the clinical trial, which consisted of the patients who had mild- to moderate-disease at the time of randomization.  For this subgroup, the decrease in mortality was even more dramatic, 70%, p = 0.004.  The witness’s report did not clearly label this subgroup as “post-hoc,” although a discerning reader might well have assessed it as such.

The expert witness was not relying upon only one clinical trial.  His report identified an earlier trial, published in a leading clinical medical journal, which reported benefit from the drug, p < 0.001.  This trial was extended, with continuing strong evidence of differential survival.  In terms of survival at five years, the earlier trial showed survival in the therapy group at 77.8%, compared to 16.7% in the control groups, p = 0.009.

The expert witness’s report did not explicitly reference clinical experience, or the in vitro and in vivo mechanistic evidence that the therapy, X, plays a role in inhibiting processes that are clearly involved in producing the disease, Z.  The expert witness could have written a stronger expert witness report with these references, but did not expect that this level of completeness was required.  The expert witness did note that he would marshal the data in more detail at a later time. The expert witness further relied upon the assessment of the principal investigator of the later clinical, who had written that the benefit against mortality of X was “compelling,” and that the finding was “a major breakthrough.”  The principal investigator of the trial noted that X was “the first treatment ever to show any meaningful clinical impact in this disease in rigorous clinical trials, and these results would indicate that [X] should be used early in the course of this disease in order to realize the most favorable long-term survival benefit.”  The report went on to note, accurately, that there are no FDA-approved therapies for Z.

Adversary counsel, receiving this report, moved pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, to exclude the expert witness’s report and his opinions.  The motion to exclude was made in advance of the deposition, and without a preliminary motion for more detail about the supporting data.  In particular, the motion to exclude claimed that the expert witness was unjustified in concluding that a benefit had been “demonstrated,” as opposed to being merely suggested.

What would be the challenger’s chances of success on the Rule 702 motion?  The outcome, Y, was not “statistically significant” at the conventional two-tail 5% (but would have been on a one-tail test).  The subgroup that sported a p-value of 0.004 was not clearly marked as a post-hoc subgroup, although the challenger could discern that it was likely exploratory, and challenged it as uncorrected for multiple testing.  The challenger, however, did not attempt to offer a modified p-value that took into account of multiple testing.  The essence of this challenge was that the expert witness’s statement that a benefit had been “demonstrated” was not supported by sufficient evidence, and that the low p-value of 0.004 was not truly “significant” because the result emerged from an analysis that was not pre-planned.

My hunch, based upon published judicial opinions on both state and federal Rule 702 motions, is that many judges would allow the challenged expert witness to testify.  There would be the usual judicial hand waving about the challenge’s going to the weight not the admissibility of the expert witness’s opinion.  Perhaps an occasional judge might order additional discovery.  I believe that most judges would not find that this expert witness had engaged in pathologically bad science such that the party proponent should be denied its expert witness.

Transmuting Disputed Causal Inferences Into Criminal Fraud

Instead of moving to exclude the expert witness’s opinion, why not turn the report over to the U.S. Attorney’s office to prosecute for wire or mail fraud?  Even if a trial court were to brand the opinion “inadmissible,” that outcome would hardly suggest that the opinion was the kind of speech that could qualify as fraudulent under federal wire or mail fraud statutes. Branding a scientist as a fraudfeasor, however, was exactly the result reached in U.S. v. Harkonen, where the Ninth Circuit upheld a wire fraud conviction of a physician whose written statements would likely have been admissible in most federal courtrooms, under Federal Rule 702.  As much as I would like to see more stringent gatekeeping of expert witness opinions, there is something unseemly about the government’s efforts here to criminalize scientific opinions with which it disagrees.

Dr. Harkonen has petitioned the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration, in a brief filed by attorneys, Mark Haddad and colleagues, of Sidley Austin.  Petition for Rehearing En Banc (filed 29, 2013).  The case raises important First Amendment and due process issues, which were addressed by the party and amici briefs before the Panel.

The case also raises the specter of prosecutions of scientists for speech in various contexts, including grant applications and reports, under the False Claims Act, for witness perjury for testimony in judicial, administrative, or legislative proceedings, or for wire or mail fraud for manuscript submissions to journals. On April 8th, Professor Robert Makuch, of Yale University, Professor Timothy Lash, of Emory University, and I filed an amicus brief, which addresses the government’s controversial branding statements “false as a matter of statistics.” The government has gone from one extreme of painting, broad brush, that statistical significance is not important or necessary (in Matrixx Initiatives Inc. v. Siracusano), to the other extreme that statistical significance is so important that a scientist who his opinion on causality on evidence the government believes is not statistically significant has committed fraud (in Harkonen).  Both extreme positions are untenable.

Posted in Causation, Rule 702, statistical evidence | Comments Off on Further Musings on U.S. v. Harkonen

Gatekeeping in Allen v. Martin Surfacing — Postscript

April 11th, 2013

Back in November 2012, I wrote a review and analysis of a district court’s handling of Rule 702 challenges to expert witness opinions, in a case involving a tragic ALS death, Allen v. Martin Surfacing, 263 F.R.D. 47 (D. Mass. 2009).  See Bad Gatekeeping or Missed Opportunity – Allen v. Martin Surfacing (Nov. 30, 2012).

I received correspondence from one of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, Dr. Marcia Ratner, who was not entirely happy with my discussion of the Allen case.  Suffice it to say, on the medico-legal issues, we do not have much common ground for agreement.  Dr. Ratner, however, asked me to update my post by noting two facts:

1.  First, plaintiffs’ counsel had asked her to testify that solvent fumes, including toluene, had caused Mr. Allen’s ALS, and she refused.  She was unwilling to acquiesce in their request, and she testified only about acceleration of onset.

2.  Second, Dr. Ratner objected to my including the colorful comments about her brush with the law.  My report was factual and documented, but I am sympathetic.  Dr. Ratner would have me note that she is a registered Republican and a staunch defender of Second Amendment rights; her arrest result when she “inadvertently stepped into a liberal trap when [she] came down [to Massachusetts] from Vermont.”

As a lawyer, I am indeed sympathetic to anyone who has truly stepped into a trap.  As for the Allen case, the matter settled, and so there never was a chance to see how a jury would react to the various theories in the case.  More important, there never was appellate judicial review of the gatekeeping efforts.

Posted in Expert Witnesses, Rule 702 | Comments Off on Gatekeeping in Allen v. Martin Surfacing — Postscript

UC Davis Daubert Symposium

March 28th, 2013

Earlier this month, I wrote about a Symposium on Daubert at the University of California Davis School of Law.  The UC Davis Law Review has now published the proceedings of the Symposium, including a transcript of the direct and cross-examinations of the mock expert witnesses:

Symposium — The Daubert Hearing: From All the Critical Perspectives

 

Posted in Expert Witnesses, Rule 702, Trial Procedure | Comments Off on UC Davis Daubert Symposium

U.C. Davis Symposium on the “Daubert” Hearing

March 11th, 2013

Professor David Faigman’s recent article, “The Daubert Revolution and the Birth of Modernity:  Managing Scientific Evidence in the Age of Science,” 102 U.C. Davis Law Rev. 101 (2013), notes that the paper grew out of informal remarks given at a recent symposium.  A little Googling quickly turned up the Symposium Site on the University of California, Davis, website.  Like Professor Faigman’s paper, this symposium is a valuable contribution to the art and learning of what Rule 702 hearings should, and should not, be.

The symposium, The Daubert Hearing — From All the Critical Perspectives (March 2, 2012) described itself:

Pretrial practice has long been the center of gravity in modern litigation. The vast majority of cases never go to trial. Instead, after pretrial discovery and in limine motions, the cases settle. The Supreme Court’s celebrated 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, has solidified that trend. In Daubert, the Court abandoned the traditional general acceptance standard for the admissibility of scientific testimony and announced a new empirical validation test. Throughout the country counsel began basing pretrial in limine motions on Daubert to target opposition expert testimony. In criminal cases, defense counsel started challenging the prosecution’s forensic evidence identifying the accused as the perpetrator. In civil tort cases, defense counsel filed motions attacking the plaintiff’s evidence on general causation. When counsel won these motions, the opposition lacked sufficient evidence to go to trial. The hearing on the pretrial Daubert motion became the centerpiece of the litigation.

This symposium will begin with a demonstration Daubert hearing. After the demonstration, all the participants will deliver remarks, giving their perspective on the law and tactics of Daubert hearings. In addition, there will be expert academic commentary by Professor David Faigman of U.C. Hastings School of Law, the lead author of the popular treatise, MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

The symposium featured a list of distinguished speakers:

Hon. James M. Rosenbaum

Robert G. Smith

Bert Black

Professor David L. Faigman

Professor Edward Imwinkelried

Dr. William A. Toscano, Jr.

Dr. Sander Greenland

The symposium’s hypothetical is available on line, and the symposium itself, which was video recorded, is available for viewing at the UC Davis website.

The scientists who role-played as expert witnesses, Drs. Toscano and Greenland,  were obviously pushed to articulate certain positions that they did not personally subscribe to.  Still, their true colors managed to show, and to influence the mock hearing.  For instance, Dr. Toscano stated several times that causation is very difficult to prove, and in so stating, he managed to convey the impression that he had a personal, subjective higher bar for causal claims than the rest of the scientific community.  This approach is a common rookie mistake for defense counsel and their expert witnesses, and it should be avoided.  There are plenty of good examples of causal relationship that have been established with epidemiology, and the defense expert should be prepared to identify them, and to explain why in some cases, the causal relationships required more exacting evidence.  The other glaring error in the defense presentation was that the exact methodological error was not made clear through Dr. Toscano’s testimony although the defense lawyer, Mr. Smith, explored the gaps and leaps of faith in his cross-examination of Dr. Greenland.  In this setting, the defense expert witness’s focus is on the methodological inadequacies of the plaintiffs’ witness, not on why he rejected the causal claim.

Dr. Greenland was his inimitable self, even going so far as to talk into his magic marker under the impression that it was a microphone.  Who knows; perhaps it was, but it also wrote on the white board.  More telling was that Dr. Greenland embraced a probabilistic conception of causation, which he explained was essentially a bet on the correct result.  This metaphor seems fatally defective.  A bet is a bet, but you cannot call the bet until you have actual evidence of who won.  It may be lovely that Dr. Greenland, or some other expert witness, is willing to place the bet, perhaps with odds, but this metaphor fails to take causal inference out of the subjective realm.  Along with his betting metaphor, Greenland emphasized that the causation decision is driven by a cost-benefit analysis of Type I and II errors.  The slippery slide into substituting the precautionary principle for causal analysis was obvious.

On the plaintiffs’ side, Bert Black, an apostate defense lawyer, did a very good job of portraying the shenanigans used by plaintiffs’ lawyers to avoid and evade gatekeeping.  Statistical significance is not necessary; epidemiology is not necessary; Bradford Hill factors are not necessary; therefore, I can show causation without much of anything.  Black illustrated nicely how the focus is redirected to other cases, such as when someone from a drug company wrote an improvident article that concludes causation from case reports alone.  Or cases involving signature diseases, or acute outbreaks, for which causal relations were discerned and embraced by scientists on the basis of very informal epidemiologic studies or even case series (which someone characterized as anecdata).

Former federal judge James Rosenbaum presided magisterially, and cowardly denied the cross-motion Rule 702 challenges.  In his comments after the mock, Judge Rosenbaum revealed his conception of the gatekeeping process as essentially a determination that the witness is competent.  Of course this is not the law, and much more is required than to determine that the witness is minimally qualified.  Professor Faigman respectfully chastised the judge for ignoring the statute and the caselaw.

One of the more interesting dialogues in the discussions after the mock centered on the harm to an expert witness’s reputational interests from the gatekeeping process.  To be sure there can be such harm, but as Professional Faigman pointed out, the potential for such harm cannot intimidate judges from ruling on the facts and law before them.  I believe though that expert witnesses should be aware of the potential for this sort of harm from their testimonial adventures, and should require certain contractual assurances from the lawyers who engage them.  For instance, expert witnesses should insist upon whether such challenges are possible in the jurisdiction, what the standards are, and whether they will have an opportunity to speak to the challenges.  The expert witnesses should insist upon prompt notification of all such challenges, and upon prompt receipt of all briefs and affidavits that challenge the validity or reliability of their opinions, as well as an opportunity to be heard on their responses.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Expert Witnesses, Frye, Rule 702, Uncategorized | Comments Off on U.C. Davis Symposium on the “Daubert” Hearing

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »