High Court Limits ‘Junk Science’ Claims
In a victory for corporations fighting lawsuits, the Supreme Court on Monday strengthened the power of judges to keep so-called “junk science” out of the courtroom.
In an 8-1 decision, the high court said trial judges should act as “gatekeepers” and are entitled to throw out “opinion evidence” from qualified experts that is not backed by solid science.
The ruling was widely seen as tilting the law in favor of corporate defendants and against plaintiffs who are suing them. It will affect lawsuits alleging defective products, personal injuries, medical malpractice or any other cases that turn on scientific evidence.
The justices said a federal judge in Atlanta correctly dismissed before trial a lawsuit filed by a 37-year-old electrician with lung cancer.
The electrician, Robert K. Joiner, had been repeatedly exposed to highly toxic PCBs on the job, and he sued General Electric, Westinghouse and Monsanto. He asserted that their equipment and the coolant chemicals in their transformers had triggered his early cancer.
The case had drawn intense interest from corporate America. Lawyers for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Manufacturers Assn., the Chemical Manufacturers Assn., the American Medical Assn. and a half dozen others filed briefs urging the court to block the lawsuit.
“This is very good news,” said a Chicago attorney for Dow Chemical Co., which has been defending itself against thousands of lawsuits filed on behalf of women who suffered illnesses after having a silicon breast implant.
But several trial lawyers who represent clients suing companies over health ailments say the criticism of “junk science” is overblown and unfair. They say these cases usually involve disputed scientific claims where experts can be found on both sides of the issue.
In Joiner’s case, lawyers for the electrician had two medical experts who would testify that research involving infant mice and studies involving workers in Italy and Norway convinced them his cancer was linked to his exposure to PCBs.
But Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the court, said “there is simply too great an analytical gap” between “these seemingly far-removed animal studies” and the conclusion that PCBs cause lung cancer in humans.
A U.S. appeals court in Atlanta, taking a more liberal approach, had revived the lawsuit and said a jury should decide the issue. The high court reversed that decision in General Electric vs. Joiner, 96-188.
An attorney for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the decision would be significant in fighting against “junk science” claims.
“The problem has been that these so-called experts can march into court and testify to just about anything,” said Robin S. Conrad. “Often, these people have degrees that might impress a jury, but their conclusions are not based on scientific evidence.”
Jeffrey White of the Assn. of Trial Lawyers of America was among those displeased with the ruling. “It is not great news for plaintiffs,” he said. “The court appears to be imposing an additional requirement, that there must be a direct link that connects the studies to the injury of the plaintiff in the case.”
Arthur H. Bryant of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice contended the new rule set by the high court will not always be bad for plaintiffs. “This decision gives judges more freedom, so they will also have more freedom to let in evidence if they choose,” he said.
Still, most legal analysts said Rehnquist’s opinion is likely to be read by trial judges as giving them more discretion to reject disputed scientific claims.
