Opinion ID: 1912277
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dr Dodson's Opinion

Text: The motion judge determined that Ronald F. Dodson, Ph.D. possessed sufficient qualifications and that his methodology and analysis were adequately reliable to opine that the chrysotile contained in brake linings and clutches is no different than the chrysotile he has studied in other types of products. [8] Dr. Dodson is a researcher with an advanced degree in life sciences and a specialty in biological electron microscopy[,] whose work involves the study of human tissue and cell structure and the analysis of asbestos fibers under sensitive and powerful microscopes. [9] The motion judge described the basis for Dr. Dodson's opinion as follows: Dr. Dodson wrote a peer-reviewed paper in which he explained how he washed worn automotive clutches and looked at the surface debris under an electron microscope. He found some short chrysotile fibers and a considerable number of long chrysotile fibers. He then studied lung tissue of an individual whose primary work activity had centered on clutch refabrication and found asbestos fibers comparable to those he observed from the worn clutches. He performed a similar experiment with new friction brakes and, again, reduced his findings to writing in a peer-reviewed paper. In this instance, he was testing a hypothesis that friction products that have been bound in a matrix do not release respirable asbestos fibers. After washing the brakes, among other materials (including the resin binding), he found respirable chrysotile asbestos fibers. [10] The motion judge continued: In addition to looking at the size and amount of chrysotile fibers released from friction products, Dr. Dodson also considered the surface characteristics of the fibers and concluded that there is no basis to distinguish the surface characteristics of friction fibers from those of other chrysotile fibers.  [11] That characterization of Dr. Dodson's analysis is not supported by the record. From Dr. Dodson's testimony at the Daubert hearing: Q: And in the fibers that you analyzed, again, you weren't able to, or you didn't undertake to try to analyze the surface charge or the surface chemistry? [. . .] A: No, sir. Dr. Dodson's testimony contradicts the motion judge's characterization of his expert opinion. The motion judge also found that Dr. Dodson testified that he would have detected changes in surface characteristics under transmission electron microscopy (TEM). [12] In that respect, the motion judge also erred. First, because Dr. Dodson admitted that he did not attempt to analyze the surface characteristics of the fibers that he studied, it is irrelevant whether Dr. Dodson would have detected changes in surface characteristics under TEM microscopy. Second, even if he had analyzed the surface characteristics of the fibers, Dr. Dodson acknowledged that TEM microscopy allows only for the detection of some alterations in some surface characteristics. Whether Dr. Dodson adequately considered the potential differences in the surface characteristics of friction products is relevant because he and Dr. Lemen both acknowledged that surface characteristics affect the carcinogenicity of the fibers. From Dr. Dodson's testimony at the Daubert hearing: Q: And surface charge has also been brought up as potentially affecting carcinogenicity? A: It affects some of the reactivity, yes. Q: And surface chemistry? A: Yes. I outlined all of those in a couple of my papers. Dr. Lemen acknowledged the same: Q: And at the bottom, they say, These observations strongly suggest that the surface charge characteristics in the electronic state of asbestos fibers may be responsible for its biologic activity. Is that what they concluded? A: Yes. Q: And in fact, that's not inconsistent at all with what Dr. Dodson and I discussed about the competing theories of cytotoxicity and carcinogenicity among these fibers, is it? A: No, not all. It is apparent that the motion judge misconstrued Dr. Dodson's testimony from his finding that: And, although Dr. Dodson acknowledged that he could not confirm what occurs biologically or chemically ( i.e. surface charge or surface chemistry) when lung or pleura tissue comes into contact with a friction fiber, even Chrysler concedes that `no one can describe the factors that make any fiber carcinogenic.' [13] The motion judge's citation to Dr. Dodson's testimony does not support this finding. Because an expert's methodology must be not only reliable intrinsically but also be reliably applied to the facts of the specific case, [14] we remand for the motion judge to determine whether, notwithstanding those mischaracterizations of the record, Dr. Dodson's opinion is sufficiently reliable.