Opinion ID: 2302332
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Relevant Field of Science

Text: As discussed previously, Appellee takes the position that the defendants could not address the methodology of a pathologist, Dr. Maddox, through the testimony of risk assessors, toxicologists, and epidemiologists. We disagree. Dr. Maddox identified himself as a community hospital pathologist try[ing] to present the medical literature as I understand it. N.T., Oct. 17, 2005 (p.m.), at 89-90. He did not indicate, however, that his opinion was based on a particular clinical diagnosis; indeed, he expressed no familiarity whatsoever with Mr. Simikian's individual circumstances. Instead, Dr. Maddox offered a broad-scale opinion on causation applicable to anyone inhaling a single asbestos fiber above background exposure levels. In doing so, he took it upon himself to address (and discount) the range of the scientific literature, including pertinent epidemiological studies. Dr. Maddox's any-exposure opinion simply was not couched in terms of a methodology or standard peculiar to the field of pathology. Accord Brief for Amici Scientists at 47 (Physicians do not assign causation every day. That is not part of clinical practice.). Rather, he explained that it was based on the interpretation of dose response curves in terms of pharmacology and toxicology. N.T., Oct. 17, 2005 (p.m.), at 90; see also id. at 153 (articulating the pathologist's risk-related perspective as a standard principle with toxic exposures to tobacco, to asbestos, any of these materials.). Indeed, the pathologist acknowledged that the rendition of a broad and generally applicable opinion concerning specific causation was outside the range of his usual professional activities. See id. at 79-80 ([M]ost of my day-to-day work deals with individual patients, not with groups of patients that epidemiologic concepts will be used upon. So, . . . most of the time the material on the patient is brought to me with a question of do you see a mesothelioma in this shipyard worker.). Moreover, as is clear from various passages of Dr. Maddox's testimony set forth in our discussion of the background, his opinion was plainly grounded on risk assessment. In this regard, the following comment of Dr. Paustenbach's carries a fair amount of resonance: I don't think [risk assessment] is in the realm of pathologists anyway. I think it is in the realm of toxicologists and risk assessors. Our training is in that. N.T., Oct. 17, 2005 (p.m.), at 179. Dr. Teta also testified that scientific methodology with respect to disease causation is her core discipline as an epidemiologist. See N.T., Oct. 18, 2005 (p.m.), at 11. Judge Colville did not err in entertaining the testimony of these witnesses on subjects which are not within the particular expertise of a pathologist, but, rather, are interdisciplinary in character.