A new blemish on the tort bar.
Last week, over-ruling a lower court and obvious logic, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that a trial court should reconsider allowing a so-called “expert” to testify in Palazzolo v. Hoffman La Roche, Inc, a lawsuit alleging that Accutane causes depression. The issue involves whether an expert should be allowed to offer testimony on a study that was (1) considered flawed and (2) was funded by plaintiffs and lawyers involved in the litigation.
The trial court in New Jersey ruled that Doug Bremner, an Emory University professor, should not be allowed to offer expert testimony on his “flawed study.” Now the appeals court has remanded the case to the trial court "to consider whether Bremner should be allowed to testify on causation, without reference to the study.” (The trial judge decided the study was central to his opinion and dismissed the case.)
To quote that well-known legal expert, Madonna – not!
There are two main problems, one scientific and other ethical. Problem #1 is Bremner’s reliance on PET scans to find metabolic changes in the brains of acne patients treated with Accutane (the problem being that all parties agreed that that PET scans could not diagnose depression). The second, as already mentioned, is that Bremner’s study was commissioned specifically for use in the litigation by plaintiffs and lawyers involved in the litigation.
Can you imagine the hue and cry if a pharmaceutical company had done this? Since sunshine is always the most potent disinfectant, how about a Sunshine Act for the tort bar?
To quote the English social reformer, William Ellery Channing, “It is far more important to me to preserve an unblemished conscience than to compass any object however great.”
Last week, over-ruling a lower court and obvious logic, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that a trial court should reconsider allowing a so-called “expert” to testify in Palazzolo v. Hoffman La Roche, Inc, a lawsuit alleging that Accutane causes depression. The issue involves whether an expert should be allowed to offer testimony on a study that was (1) considered flawed and (2) was funded by plaintiffs and lawyers involved in the litigation.
The trial court in New Jersey ruled that Doug Bremner, an Emory University professor, should not be allowed to offer expert testimony on his “flawed study.” Now the appeals court has remanded the case to the trial court "to consider whether Bremner should be allowed to testify on causation, without reference to the study.” (The trial judge decided the study was central to his opinion and dismissed the case.)
To quote that well-known legal expert, Madonna – not!
There are two main problems, one scientific and other ethical. Problem #1 is Bremner’s reliance on PET scans to find metabolic changes in the brains of acne patients treated with Accutane (the problem being that all parties agreed that that PET scans could not diagnose depression). The second, as already mentioned, is that Bremner’s study was commissioned specifically for use in the litigation by plaintiffs and lawyers involved in the litigation.
Can you imagine the hue and cry if a pharmaceutical company had done this? Since sunshine is always the most potent disinfectant, how about a Sunshine Act for the tort bar?
To quote the English social reformer, William Ellery Channing, “It is far more important to me to preserve an unblemished conscience than to compass any object however great.”
