The NAM joined with 7 other organizations in an amicus brief urging the Michigan Court of Appeals to reverse a trial court order that allowed scientifically unreliable testimony to be admitted at trial. The plaintiff’s expert thought that occupational exposure to brake linings causes cancer. No appellate court has ever ruled that such a conclusion is reliable. Our amicus brief supported the company’s argument that no epidemiological studies show a causal connection between an auto mechanic’s work and the chance of contracting mesothelioma. Of particular importance are 17 epidemiological studies and reviews since 1980 on this subject, and none has found a positive association with mesothelioma, while they did find a positive association for other jobs. The plaintiff alleged that he contracted the disease from working on brake parts at various times over a 46-year career as an auto mechanic.The NAM’s brief argued that the use of sound science is particularly important in light of the tremendous impact that asbestos litigation has had on our economy. The court improperly relied on government regulatory exposure limits as a substitute for proof of causation. The trial judge must act as a gatekeeper to prevent unreliable evidence from being admitted, or there will be no pre-trial science defense available for defendants.
On 1/30/07, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling, 2 to 1. It held that a judge's role is not to resolve scientific disputes, but rather to filter out expert evidence that is unreliable. Admissible opinions must be rationally derived from a sound foundation. The trial judge was found to have properly used his discretion in allowing one expert testifying using case studies and another using epidemiological studies that showed a conflicting conclusion. This case is being appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.