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.
Junk science in asbestos litigation
- Judge orders end to trial reservation system in Madison County asbestos docket
- The problem of the special master
- Asbestos litigation and search-engine optimization
- California rejects tertiary asbestos liability in O'Neill v. Crane
- Madison County's controversial asbestos litigation system under fire yet again
- Congressional hearing on asbestos fraud
- Judge orders lawyers to mandatory Labor-Day weekend seminar
- Around the web, August 22
- "CSX claims racketeering in Pittsburgh law firm's legal tactics"
- Around the web, July 29
- Around the web, June 18
- $322M verdict for phantom asbestosis
- "The Market for Specious Claims"
- Around the web, March 16
- Mississippi Supreme Court gets hellhole cleanup opportunity
Center for Legal Policy at the