The congressional probe of suspect silicosis claims has hit a wall of silence in the course of questioning physicians involved in diagnosing multiple cases of the malady.

Three physicians who were called to testify at a House hearing invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination Wednesday to avoid answering questions about their wholesale diagnosis of silicosis in patients whose claims were later dismissed after scrutiny in both federal and state courts.

The hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was convened to probe approximately 10,000 silicosis diagnoses that a federal judge labeled “manufactured for money” before remanding the claims to state courts, where they were later dismissed for lack of evidence.

U.S. District Court Judge Janis Graham Jack in Corpus Christi, Texas, in June of 2005 rejected a class action lawsuit claiming silicosis injury, saying the complaint was based on diagnoses that were “manufactured for money.” The claims were later dismissed in state court for lack of evidence.

The physicians involved in the federal case, who were called before the committee, were Drs. James Ballard of Birmingham, Ala.; Andrew Harron of Kenosha, Wis.; and Ray Harron of Bridgeport, W.V. The doctors appeared with their lawyers but said little at the hearing.

According to testimony, they were responsible for the diagnoses of approximately 120, 505 and 1,200 silicosis claimants, respectively. In addition, they supplied X-ray reports used to support many other diagnoses.

“Will you certify that each of these diagnoses and all others that you made in this litigation are accurate and made pursuant to all medical practices, standards and ethics?” they were asked by Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., chairman of the subcommittee.

One by one, Drs. Harron and Ballard refused to answer, invoking their constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Judge Jack's decision in Re: Silica Products Liability Litigation detailed how diagnoses of silicosis, a largely incurable and often fatal pulmonary disease, were produced for approximately 10,000 plaintiffs largely by the same 12 physicians for use in subsequent lawsuits.

Judge Jack concluded that “these diagnoses were about litigation rather than health care,” and “were driven by neither health nor justice, [but] were manufactured for money.”

In his comments at the hearing, Rep. Whitfield said the problems uncovered by the decision by Judge Jack “are particularly troubling because they undermine our judicial system.”

“But they also clearly show the lack of attention or concern about the actual health or treatment of patients. Dollars were the priority. Patients' health and well-being were afterthoughts.”

“That's not medicine; that's greed,” said U.S. Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H.

“This might be a story of medical heroes who identify and then treat and care for people with a deadly disease,” added U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee.

“More likely, this is a story of medical mercenaries who allege cases of disease for the purpose of legal action and great financial gain. Particularly troubling is the prospect that thousands of people were handed bogus diagnoses of this horrible disease and, in many instances, by medically unqualified lawyers, paralegals or screening company employees.”

Another witness, Tulane University Law Professor Edward Sherman, testified that, “The system has taken on a life of its own.” He suggested that, without stronger standards, similar shaky claims could plague other industries.

Special Reports /

Silicosis Claim MDs Clam Up On Congress

Related Stories

Recommended For You