Why Lawyers, Risk Managers and Executives Might Care About Molecular Biology as Applied to Tort Claiming - In a Word, Milward

Over the next few weeks, some of the new posts will focus on recent papers and rulings that illustrate why this blog includes so many posts about molecular biology, new science tools, and new findings. 
In short, the pace of molecular biology has material implications for litigation.
 
In 1854, a veteran cholera researcher (John Snow)  attributed a cholera outbreak to use of water drawn from a neighborhood well in old London. Dr. Snow's  theory bucked the conventional wisdom that "bad air" caused cholera. Mr. Snow's theory was plausible when compared to the facts, but others disagreed, preferring their "bad air" views.
 
At that point in time, the investigative microscopes and other science tools  were not enough to find the exact source of the disease. So, the diligent researcher sought to further prove the cause by investigating whether cholera deaths occurred among people who had used the well. That theory bore statistical fruit, and ultimately others became convinced the risk related to the well.   Thus, epidemiology was born, and "cause" was attributed based on studies of large numbers of persons. But even then, the cause was not truly isolated - the government did not want to accept the reality that fecal matter could contaminate water and cause cholera. Thirty years later, however, new science tools were more powerful, and the responsible bacteria were found, as explained here (short version) and here (longer version). 
 
In contrast, researchers today use powerful new tools and take a molecular look at the pump handle, and/or the water in the well,  instead of depending on studies of people who may or may not have encountered the pump handle. And, today, researchers are increasingly able to find objective biomarkers that establish, for example,  past contact with water from the well. 
 
 In the recent past, defendants sought to make science their friend by challenging plaintiff’s lawyers to gather "scientific proof."  Defendants especially grew to love, argue for and rely on epidemiology, which some argued as if it were the one and only true science. Then, the Daubert decision was won, and defendants developed even more confidence in "science."   

Today, however, some defense lawyers are rightfully worried about where law and science are going. Some are particularly concerned because plaintiffs are often the litigants embracing new molecular biology findings.  For example, plaintiffs embrace Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc., 639 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2011).  Milward is not favorable for defendants as it refused to reject new, non-epidemiology evidence on the cause of a form of leukemia. 

Why focus on Milward? Because far sighted lawyers in the defense bar consider it a key case.  In over-simplified terms, molecular findings triumphed over epidemiology. That's not a happy outcome for defendants that win summary judgments by arguing that expert opinions must be excluded when they are not backed by epidemiology.  Accordingly, defense groups made every effort to have Milward reviewed and reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, but failed. This page of Scotusblog provides links to the 1st Circuit’s opinion, and all of the U.S. Supreme Court certiorari briefs, including the defendant’s cert petition and unsuccessful amicus briefs by the Defense Research Institute, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Product Liability Advisory Counsel. But they did not succeed.

 

 
 

Mr. Indispensable - The Epicurean Dealmaker Skewers Jamie Dimon, the Board and the Media

Happy Friday. A new post by the Epicurean Dealmaker runs a skewer through pretty much every part of the media coverage of and the substantive issues related to JP Morgan Chase leadership and Jamie Dimon. Two excerpts follow to tempt you to click here and read it all

"Seriously, folks, the brouhaha surrounding the upcoming nonbinding shareholder vote to separate the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer roles at J.P. Morgan is getting a bit silly. People are marshaling all sorts of weak, irrelevant, and disingenuous reasons on both sides to argue for and against the resolution. Hence we get ludicrous examples of access journalists asking a gaggle of powerful white men whether another powerful white man should lose his power. Gee, I wonder how that turned out, don’t you?

***
 
Still other FOJs contend Mr. Dimon’s delivery of $21 billion in record profits last year should silence his critics and put the kibosh on this petty attempt to strip him of rightful powers and duties. But I say the man or woman at the helm of a $2.4 trillion colossus which employs over a quarter of a million people around the globe damn well better produce some pretty amazing results, especially when so many of its largest competitors remain in disarray, the cost of funds for financial firms could not be cheaper if Ben Bernanke were backing up a dump truck full of dead presidents into J.P. Morgan’s lobby, and his privately held bank is implicitly backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government (and perhaps the European Union, too).1 The man is a CEO. He is supposed to create good results with the awe inspiring assets he has at his disposal. He did. Big whoop. Give the man a fucking fruitcake.2"

Tags:

"Learning from Litigation" - Study by UCLA Law Professor Suggests Medical Malpractice Litigation Aids in Creating Transparency and Reduction of Malpractice

A New York Times oped article today urges that medical malpractice litigation is serving a positive role in efforts to reduce the unfortunately vast amount of medical malpractice that occurs annually. Happily, the oped is backed up by a research paper and so it's not just opinion. 

The author, Joanna C. Schwartz, is a UCLA law professor with no apparent ties to any of the usually advocating constituencies (plaintiff's lawyers, hospitals, doctors or insurers.)  It appears instead she is interested in litigation and its impacts.  Thus, Professor Schwartz' bio includes federal clerkships, pro bono work, overseeing clinical trial work by students and an article on the role of lawsuits in decision making by law enforcement officials:  Myths and Mechanics of Deterrence: The Role of Lawsuits in Law Enforcement Decisionmaking, 57 UCLA Law Review 1023 (2010). 

Professor Schwartz' oped, titled Learning from Litigation -  includes the following observations:  

"What accounts for these changes? Several factors appear to have overcome historical resistance to transparency, including widespread laws requiring disclosure to patients and confidentiality protections for internal discussions of error. Hospitals have also found that disclosing errors to patients and offering early settlements reduces the costs and frequency of litigation.

My study also shows that malpractice suits are playing an unexpected role in patient safety efforts, as a source of valuable information about medical error. Over 95 percent of the hospitals in my study integrate information from lawsuits into patient safety efforts. And risk managers and patient-safety personnel overwhelmingly report that lawsuit data have proved useful in efforts to identify and address error.

One might think that hospitals would have little to learn from lawsuits, given other requirements that hospitals report, investigate and analyze medical error. But participants in my study said that lawsuits can reveal previously unknown incidents of medical errors — particularly diagnostic and treatment errors with delayed manifestations that other reporting systems are not designed to collect."
 
The full article is on SSRN at this page, and also is reviewed and summarized at Jotwell Health Law. The article abstract provides more specifics: 

Abstract:      

Every year, medical error kills and injures hundreds of thousands of people and costs billions of dollars in lost income, lost household production, disa-bility, and health care expenses. Conventional wisdom is that malpractice litigation does little to improve patient safety and, in fact, harms the cause. Lawsuits are believed to offer little useful information about medical error. And the fear of malpractice liability is believed to inhibit the kind of open-ness and transparency needed to identify and address the root causes of medical error. Critics of the conventional wisdom contend, in contrast, that malpractice litigation brings crucial information about medical error to the surface, and creates financial, political, and institutional pressures to im-prove. Yet both proponents and critics of the conventional wisdom offer scant evidence in support of their claims.
 
This Article sheds much needed light on this hotly contested debate by ex-amining the role that medical malpractice lawsuits actually play in hospital patient safety efforts. I conducted a national survey of health care profes-sionals and thirty-five in-depth interviews of those responsible for managing risk and improving patient safety in hospitals across the country. Drawing on this research, I find reason to believe that malpractice litigation is not significantly compromising the patient safety movement’s call for transpar-ency. In fact, the opposite appears to be occurring: the openness promoted by patient safety advocates is transforming hospitals’ relationship to law-suits and risk. Hospitals, once afraid of disclosing and discussing error for fear of liability, increasingly encourage transparency with patients and medical staff. Moreover, lawsuits are playing a productive role in hospital patient safety efforts – as a source of valuable data about weaknesses in hospital policy, practices, staff, and administration. These observations should inform open and pressing questions about medical malpractice re-form and the best ways to improve patient safety."

Judging by the abstract and the oped (I've not read the full article), the research findings appear to jibe with prior research on medical malpractice myths - as opposed to war stories. The research shows that medical malpractice suits are best avoided by acknowledging errors, apologizing, and paying compensation in appropriate cases

 

Human Embryonic Stem Cells Now Cloned

(Image courtesy of OHSU).

It's been done - researchers from Oregon have cloned human, embryonic stem cells. Scientific American and many others are carrying the story.

There are limits to the accomplishment - the clones are not perfect and seem unwilling to grow in utero. Nonetheless, it's quite a step. Now we wait to see how it all unfolds at the intersections between science, law, ethics and other views. 

Tags:

Ponzi Scheme Lawyers Losing Privilege ?

How far does privilege go when lawyers apparently have knowledge of a Ponzi scheme? Perhaps not far enough to block a duty to speak, according to an appellate court in Canada, and a McCarthy Tretualt article

The fact pattern is unusual because the suit at issue is against a law firm that represented both the Ponzi scheme defendants and an investor in a company that was part of a scheme. The investor client sought securities advice related to the businesses in the alleged Ponzi scheme. On review of a pretrial motion to strike, the appellate court held that the case should go forward to trial. According to the appellate court, the facts revealed at trial might result in striking the privilege and holding the lawyers to a duty to speak about what they knew about the Ponzi scheme. 

The case truly does involve an unusual fact pattern. On the other hand, that fact pattern is not terribly far removed from a fact pattern in which a law firm provides a generic opinion letter to a client that is part of a Ponzi-scheme. It's more than foreseeable that investors will be offered the opinion  letter, and may allege reliance on the opinion letter even though the letter presumably disclaims any intent to allow reliance by third-parties. 

"Chasseurs d'ambulances" - Class Actions in Europe

Despite its tongue-in-cheek headline, this Economist article provides a useful update on class actions in France in particular, and Europe in general. The article confirms the logical is happening - as US courts push back and resist becoming the world's courts, other nations are stepping in and facilitating class actions. And, as it also mentions, other countries are more pragmatic and facilitate litigation funding, which is both needed and logical  despite the protests of the US Chamber of Commerce and its various arms and advocates.

A Duty to Mine Big Data

Tort claims and defenses involve foreseeability. Data and information can drive foreseeability.

With data and foreseeability in mind, consider a recent, great post by David Oliver on "the duty to mine big data."  The post is a look by David at a pharma case involving Fosamax. In essence, the argument was that seller was negligent for failing to use standard pharma industry software tools to look at FDA data for signs of Fosamax causing  "oversuppression of bone turnover."  According to an expert, the warning signs were sitting in the FDA data and would have been seen if the manufacturer had looked, using industry accepted software.  David's ultimate conclusion about the opinion:  

"The court thereby implicitly held, I think, that the defendant had a duty to mine the FDA's data as early as 2001-2002. In other words, the existence of powerful data mining tools capable of uncovering an early signal of a possible harm associated with defendant's product created a duty to use such a tool. Ultimately, that's a duty to discover any statistical association between your product and some harm in the FDA's (admittedly accessible) that might be causal and to thereafter warn about it; and it's a duty to mine not only your data but any data that might shed light on your product."

Assume David is right on the holding.  Now go outside pharma. Consider the implications of mining the world's knowledge when applied against current miners, users and sellers of asbestos fibers. Consider the implications for a chemical manufacturer or distributor. Also consider the vast power of today's supercomputers (such as Blue Waters at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign),  and tomorrow's quantum computers, as foreseen by Nobel Prize committees.  And think about the fact that Gordon Moore gave Caltech $ 600 million to increase the pace of scientific research, and he and his wife Betty operate a foundation that endows other smart researchers.  

Stunning changes are ahead, and some are arriving today. 

 

Canadian Province Tobacco Trial Marches Forward - The Defense Loses Most Every Motion

A new post on Eye on the Trials provides a concise summary of the tobacco companies losing a series of defense motions launched at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, including a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. One hopes big tobacco continues to lose on all issues. It's well past time to end the massive economic and human harms caused by smoking.

In my view, virtually all employers (including my law firm) subsidize big tobacco in several ways. For example, employers pay health  insurance premiums and worker's compensation payments that are increased because of illness and disease in persons whose immune systems are compromised by their employees who smoke (or did smoke). We likewise collectively eat part of the cost (through income taxes) for free or subsidized low cost medical care provided to smokers via  Medicare, Medicaid and charity care payments. Certainly asbestos defendants are providing major subsidies to tobacco companies as they pay for cancers and non-malignant diseases mainly or exclusively caused by smoking. 

Tags:

Australia - Quinn Emanuel's Latest Move into More Product Liability and Insurance Work

Yesterday's news was litigation powerhouse Quinn Emanuel taking almost 20 product liability and insurance lawyers from Skadden Arps and Weil Gotshal. Today's news is the Quinn firm opening an office in Australia. And one of the new lawyers is a long-time Australian lawyer who focuses on insurance and product liability issues

Interesting times are ahead as companies and law firms gear up for coming waves of toxic tort litigation. One suspects that Quinn Emanuel and some of its clients are noting that cancer rates are soaring around the world, not to mention internet advertising and late night tv ads seeking claimants. As to cancer, global cancer rates are expected to double by 2020 and triple by 2030. It's also clear that some cancer (and other diseases) arise from multi-generational risks and harms created by external sources and passed down from parent to child or even grand-child - DES daughters and grand-daughters are prime examples.

Meanwhile, molecular biology is moving forward at a stunning pace.  New scientific findings and tools emerge almost daily, in many instances powered by vast computing power, which continues to increase. Researchers therefore are starting to develop some level of "fingerprints" for diseases, mutations, epigenetic changes,  and ultimately causation. Consider this example of tracking molecular changes caused by smoking. 

We lawyers have much work to do to start catching up to science, and thinking seriously about stunning changes in what's possible and knowable. SCOTUS already is wrestling with some issues regarding DNA and where that technology will be in a few years. 

Products Liability Practices - Of Growing Interest as Mass Tort Claiming Continues to Grow

Once upon a time, many law firms disdained product liability litigation. Today, not so much - more top tier firms are aggressively seeking out products liability practices. The latest example arises from Quinn Emmanuel taking on 15 products lawyers from Skadden Arps.  In other instance, some big firms like to combine products liability and insurance recovery practices. 

The Quinn acquisition appears in part client-driven. According to a LAW360 article

  • Law360, New York (May 08, 2013, 4:35 PM ET) -- More than 15 Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP product liability attorneys are following colleagues Sheila Birnbaum and Mark Cheffo to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, according to the two new leaders of the firm's products practice.
  • Former Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP product liability attorneys Michael Lyle and Eric Lyttle also recently joined Quinn Emanuel as partners. There were fewer than 20 attorneys listed on Quinn Emanuel's website as partners in the products group before the recent spate of hirings.
  • "There's been a palpable commitment from the highest levels of the firm ... not only to embracing us, but embracing us with an eye toward growth in the future," Cheffo told Law360.
  • Birnbaum and Cheffo will continue their work with Pfizer Inc., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. and Occidental Chemical at their new firm, they said. Quinn Emanuel will represent Pfizer in multidistrict litigation over injuries allegedly caused by the antidepressant Zoloft and anti-seizure drug Neurontin, as well as lawsuits over the antidepressant Effexor.
  • Quinn Emanuel already represented Pfizer in cases over the heartburn drug Reglan and in a bellwether Neurontin trial. The firm has served as national product liability counsel forColgate-Palmolive Co., national coordinating counsel for The Scotts Co. in thousands of asbestos cases and as lead counsel for Chartis in litigation over allegedly defective Chinese drywall.