This is an appeal of a ruling that from the Michigan Court of Appeals that allowed testimony from an individual about the possibility that dust from brake linings could have caused cancer. The NAM joined with 7 other organizations in an amicus brief urging the Michigan Supreme Court to find the testimony scientifically unreliable and therefore inadmissible at trial. 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 6/22/07, the Michigan Supreme Court, over a vigorous dissent, declined to hear the appeal. The dissent lists 33 questions relating to the expert testimony in this case that remained unanswered because of the court's refusal to hear the appeal.