class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

FORUM

« Featured Discussion underway now! | Robert Samuelson on AGs' warming suit »

August 17, 2004


Junk science in asbestos litigation

Over on Volokh Conspiracy, our friend David Bernstein has a post on junk science in asbestos litigation. Professor Bernstein cites to a study posted on Healthfactsandfears.com in which "plaintiffs' B-readers reported that 95.9% of 492 chest x-rays had possible asbestos-related lung damage, [but] unaffiliated doctors found that only 4.5% of them showed possible damage." Those who've read Professor Brickman's voluminous piece on the subject shouldn't be surprised.

Posted by James R. Copland at 03:02 PM | TrackBack (0)



categories:
Asbestos
Products Liability
Scientific Evidence
Statistics/Empirical Work









 

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.