New York Times
August 4, 2004

Study Raises Questions of Witnesses
By REED ABELSON
 
A new study raises significant questions over the medical findings of some doctors acting as expert witnesses in asbestos liability lawsuits.

 In the study, an independent panel of doctors reviewed 492 chest X-rays that had been submitted by plaintiffs' lawyers in asbestos lawsuits. They found that only a small fraction indicated possible asbestos-related lung damage.

 That was in stark contrast to the conclusions of the doctors who originally read the X-rays after being retained by lawyers representing people who were claiming injury. Those doctors found that 96 percent of the X-rays showed possible damage.

 "It was astonishing," said Dr. Joseph N. Gitlin, an associate professor of radiology at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, who is the lead author of the study, which will be published today in Academic Radiology, a journal for university radiologists. Although Dr. Gitlin has served as a consultant for lawyers defending companies from asbestos claims, he said he was not paid to conduct the study.

In recent years, hundreds of thousands of people have filed asbestos-related claims, seeking billions of dollars in compensation in federal and state courts. The avalanche of claims has led critics to claim that many people seeking damages are not truly suffering from asbestos-related disease.

 While the researchers at Johns Hopkins emphasized that the study does not allow them to reach any conclusions about how many asbestos claims may be valid, they say the difference in findings between the expert witnesses and the study panel is too great to be a simple disagreement in interpretation. Studies have shown that doctors looking at X-rays typically differ a third of the time in their interpretation.

 Although the study was conducted in a way that the identities of the expert witnesses and the plaintiffs were unknown to the researchers, the authors do know that seven doctors were responsible for assessing more than half of the X-rays reviewed in the study.

 In an accompany editorial in the same issue of the journal, two doctors not involved in the study say the findings raise questions about the integrity of some doctors who serve as expert witnesses. "The credibility and integrity of radiology experts are essential," they argue, and the profession has a responsibility to investigate to see whether doctors are breaching their ethical duties.