PaintSquare.com


The First Word in Protective & Marine Coatings

A Product of Technology Publishing / PaintSquare
JPCL | PaintSquare News | Durability + Design | Paint BidTracker

Chemical & Petrochemical Plant Coating Systems

Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page


Court Tosses ‘Any Dose’ Asbestos Claim

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

More items for Health & Safety

Comment | More

In a case with major potential implications for chemical exposure claims, Pennsylvania’s high court has dismissed expert testimony asserting that “each and every fiber of inhaled asbestos” contributes to cancer.

The 6-0 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, issued May 23, rejected expert testimony in an auto mechanic’s lawsuit against Ford Motor Co., Allied Signal and other companies.

 The mechanic argued that he contracted mesothelioma over decades spent working on asbestos brake linings.

 aa1car.com

The mechanic argued that he contracted mesothelioma over decades spent working on asbestos brake linings.

Mechanic Charles Simikian claimed that the mesothelioma he contracted was due to his exposure to asbestos-containing brake linings and similar products over a 44-year period.

Simikian died after filing the litigation in February 2005, and his widow carried on the case.

‘The Poison is in the Dose’

The decision involved a 2005 affidavit by an expert witness that Simikian had retained. Pathologist John C. Maddox, M.D., of Newport News, VA, said in that sworn statement that “each exposure to asbestos” is “a substantial contributing factor in the development of the disease.”

Maddox compared the exposure to cigarette smoking, saying that “[a]ll the cigarettes that one smokes are considered to be contributory to the development of the lung cancer.”

Two expert witnesses retained by the companies, however, trounced Maddox’s conclusions, saying that he was ignoring the critical factor of dosage in evaluating toxic exposure.

The trial judge agreed, saying that whether the potentially harmful substance in question was water, alcohol or nitroglycerine, “The poison is in the dose.”

‘Unsound and Illogical’

Occupational environmental epidemiologist M. Jane Teta, Dr.P.H. M.P.H., said that Maddox’s conclusion ignored scientific evidence, “employed a selective approach” to scientific literature; and, in particular, disregarded “a wealth of epidemiological evidence” showing that workers who use brake linings and similar products do not have a higher rate of mesothelioma than the general population, Justice Thomas Saylor wrote in the 53-page opinion.

Dennis J. Paustenbach, PhD, PABT, another expert witness for the defendants, also contended that Maddox had been selective in his review and had not cited “a single paper in the last 25 years” among his evidence.

Together, the two defendants’ experts debunked Maddox’s methodology and conclusions as “scientifically unsound and illogical.”

‘Any Dose’

Saylor agreed, saying that the plaintiffs must show some relationship between the level of exposure and the illness.

“Simply put, one cannot simultaneously maintain that a single fiber among millions is substantially causative, while also conceding that a disease is dose-responsive,” Saylor wrote.

To accept the “any dose” theory, the court said, would be to say that it “makes no difference if the plaintiff merely worked infrequently on a family vehicle or was a shipyard worker frequently exposed to friable asbestos of the most carcinogenic form.”

Expert Test Case

The justices said they took up the matter as a test case of the so-called Frye test, which bars “novel scientific evidence from the courtroom until it has achieved acceptance in the relevant scientific community.”

The defense had argued that it would be impossible to legally assign responsibility without showing that Simikian had been exposed to specific doses of asbestos known to cause the disease.

The trial judge—Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Colville—agreed, and the high court said Colville “was right to be circumspect about the scientific methodology underlying the any-exposure opinion.”

Business Support

The case drew more than a dozen friend-of-the-court briefs from business, manufacturing and chemical groups on behalf of the defendants.

The National Federation of Independent Business lauded the ruling, saying that thousands of small businesses nationwide had been sued on the basis of the “any-dose” theory.

“This is a significant decision because it prevents the use of tenuous theories that have no basis in science,” the group’s Pennsylvania director, Kevin Shivers, told The Philadelphia Inquirer. ”We are grateful to the court for this decision because it makes the system objectively fairer.”

   

Tagged categories: Asbestos; Exposure conditions; Health and safety; Lawsuits

Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

ABKaelin, LLC
Quality is our bottom line

Services include:
• Environmental, Health &
  Safety
• Contractor QP Certification
• Quality Assurance Programs
  and Auditing
• SSPC C3/C5 and other
  Training
• Coatings
• Design/Construction
See our website at abkaelin.com or contact us today abkaelin@comcast.com


Bullard

The Next Generation
of Blasting

• Lightest
• Coolest
• Most Comfortable
• Most Dependable


PaintSquare
SSPC 2014 Product Demos

Watch product demos by SSPC 2014 exhibitors. Check them out now!


Clemco Industries Corp.
Powerful Protection in a Small Package

Mounts inside blast helmet, alerts operator to dangerous breathing-air condition by audible, visual, and vibratory alarms. Easily calibrated, battery operated.


CS Unitec
Peening Preparation Tools

CS Unitec’s hand-held scarifiers are an ideal alternative to small-area shot blasting for cleaning and preparing concrete & metal surfaces. info@csunitec.com


Blastox/The TDJ Group, Inc.
Blastox - One Step
Lead Abatement

Don't waste $$ on added labor steps with other methods. Don't mix, meter or apply at the job-site. Avoid strict hazardous waste rules.
Let your painters paint!


Novatek Corporation
Dustless Coatings Removal

Strip it, clean it, and profile it,
all dust free! High production
rates and Blast like finishes.
Comply with new lead
standards.

 
 
 
Technology Publishing

The Technology Publishing Network

The Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings (JPCL) PaintSquare
Durability + Design Paint BidTracker JPCL Europe

 
EXPLORE:      JPCL   |   PaintSquare News   |   Interact   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   Resources   |   Classifieds
REGISTER AND SUBSCRIBE:      Free PaintSquare Registration   |   Subscribe to JPCL   |   Subscribe to PaintSquare News
MORE:      About PaintSquare.com   |   Privacy policy   |   Terms & conditions   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us
 

© Copyright 2000-2014, Technology Publishing / PaintSquare, All rights reserved
2100 Wharton Street, Suite 310, Pittsburgh PA 15203-1951; Tel 1-412-431-8300; Fax 1-412-431-5428; E-mail webmaster@paintsquare.com