In response to the opinion of an external scientific committee, a federal judge in Oregon this week found that the evidence linking silicone breast implants with immune disorders in 70 women was too small to be presented to a jury. If an appellate court agrees, the decision could strike a blow to implant lawsuits nationwide and encourage wider use of these expert groups in cases where the scientific evidence is in dispute .
The Robert E. Jones US district judge based his opinion on a 4-day hearing in which four independent scientists * have heard lawyers and expert witnesses discuss evidence for the claims of women to autoimmune and other diseases made in a lawsuit against those responsible for their implants, Baxter Healthcare Corp. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. the judge agreed with the companies' request to exclude from trial "any expert testimony on a general causal link between breast implants silicone gel" and disease. He added: "I am aware that this view goes further by evaluating and eliminating the complainants' allegations that any opinion in breast implants pending litigation in this country"
Indeed, the decision. could affect tens of thousands more implant cases pending, say legal experts. "It's certainly, I'm sure, will have an impact on the settlement discussions," said Margaret Berger Brooklyn Law School. but until the decision has been appealed, she said, "it is very difficult to determine what kind of legal effect it will have."
Another reason for withholding the judgment is that the US district judge in Alabama has named a similar panel to examine the scientific case against the implants in a class that could reach settlement $ 3 billion. This panel will work a little differently, which makes a report that will serve as evidence in a trial. Oregon Judge Jones said he will not implement its decision after seeing the conclusions of the panel of Alabama, which could take a year.
The case is also important, Berger said, "because scientific panels have been used for many a bar before." Jones wrote that he turned to a group of experts, in accordance with a decision of the Supreme Court appeal of the 1993 judges to be "guardians" and exclude the faulty science.
* Merwyn R. Greenlick, epidemiologist, Oregon Health Sciences University
Robert F. Wilkens, rheumatologist practicing Seattle
Mary Stenzel-Poore, immunotoxicologist, Oregon Health Sciences University
Ronald McClard, polymer chemist, Reed College
0 Komentar