“A new look at X-rays used to help win billions of dollars for asbestos victims detected abnormalities in only 4.5 percent of the X-rays — not in 96 percent, as medical experts intitially testified. The study by Johns Hopkins University radiologists found that medical experts who testified on behalf of plaintiffs in asbestos suits almost always found something suspicious on their X-rays, whether it was asbestos dust or a likely malignant tumor.” The study appeared in this week’s Academic Radiology, a scientific journal. (Bill Scanlan, Rocky Mountain News (Denver), Aug. 5; Reed Abelson, “Study Raises Questions of Witnesses”, New York Times, Aug. 4). See, among many other entries on this site, Jan. 21. More: the journal Nature weighs in (Emma Marris, “Asbestos study suggests bias in experts”, Aug. 5). Yet more: GeekPress, MichMedMal.
“Asbestos X-rays rechecked”
“A new look at X-rays used to help win billions of dollars for asbestos victims detected abnormalities in only 4.5 percent of the X-rays — not in 96 percent, as medical experts intitially testified. The study by Johns Hopkins University radiologists found that medical experts who testified on behalf of plaintiffs in asbestos suits almost […]
One Comment
Great! Who do we sue?
Via Overlawyered, the news that — shock! — Asbestos expert witnesses may have been a little less accurate than one would like when deciding where billions of dollars flow: A new look at X-rays used to help win billions of…