Asbestos Expert Testimony Doubted

In a study of 492 chest x-rays obtained by plaintiff's lawyers and entered as evidence in lawsuits against former employers, the original interpreters claimed to find evidence of possible asbestos-related lung damage in 95.9 percent of the cases. When the same x-rays were re-read by six disinterested physicians, the abnormality rate was only 4.5 percent.

"The magnitude of the differences between the interpretations by the plaintiffs' readers and the six consultants is too great to be attributed to interobserver error," the study authors asserted in a joint statement. "There is no support in the world literature on x-ray studies of workers exposed to asbestos and other mineral dusts for the high level of positive findings by the initial readers of this report."

Carlton Carl, spokesman for the American Trial Lawyers Assn., dismissed the study as producing the kind of results that the people who funded it desired.

He cited recent Senate testimony of David Austern, general counsel of the Manville Trust, who asserted that his own group of back-up readers disagreed with each other more than half the time. "This is not an exact science," he told the panel.

Radiology consultant Otha Linton, who took part in the study, said it was funded by what he termed a "group of lawyers," who for the most part represented the defense bar. The lead author of the study, Dr. Joseph Gitlin, associate professor of radiology at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, in the past has served as a consultant for lawyers defending companies from asbestos claims.

Johns Hopkins researchers were not permitted to reach any conclusions about the study. But Mr. Linton said the difference in interpretation is too great to be explained by random error. He noted that studies have shown that different doctors looking at X-rays disagree about a third of the time.

The results were published in the August edition of Academic Radiology. An accompanying editorial said the study findings indicated the possible need for an investigation in the ethics of those doctors working for the plaintiff's bar.

Mr. Carl said the study would not have any impact on future litigation. However, Mark Behrens, with the Washington law firm Shook, Hardy and Bacon, who represents a coalition of insurers, said the study should serve as a warning to judges.

"What the study says is that there is evidence of widespread abuse and apparent fraud in how these X-rays are being read," he said. "And that if you were to apply sound science?if a neutral expert were to look at these cases?more often than not they would indicate the person did not have an X-ray that would indicate the person had something that could be the basis for a legal claim."

The future impact remains uncertain. "Now that the courts have been made aware of it, they must now look at any X-rays with a great deal of skepticism," Mr. Behrens said.