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

« Does Stephenson limit the benefits of CAFA? | Welcome Business Insurance readers »

February 27, 2005


Silicosis doctors testify II: "Great red flags of fraud"

Following up on our Feb. 17 entry on the silicosis plaintiffs scandal unfolding in a federal courtroom in Corpus Christi: "U.S. District Judge [Janis] Graham Jack said testimony in a massive silicosis lawsuit raised 'great red flags of fraud' on the part of doctors and plaintiff attorneys involved in the case." A sanctions hearing is scheduled for March 14. (Neal Falgoust, "Case judge: 'Red flags of fraud' are raised", Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Feb. 18; Neal Falgoust, "Doctor decries testing process", Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Feb. 19; Mealey Publications, "Silicosis Cases At Risk After Daubert Hearing; Asbestos Litigation Could Be Affected", Feb. 22 (via Nordberg); In re: Silica Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1553, S.D. Tex.).

Posted by Ted Frank at 04:05 PM | TrackBack (3)



categories:
Asbestos









 

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.