Opinion ID: 1912277
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Dr Lemen's Opinion

Text: Dr. Lemen is an epidemiologist and industrial hygienist who has studied asbestos for more than thirty years. [15] We find that the motion judge similarly mischaracterized the record in relation to two aspects of Dr. Lemen's opinion, and we remand for the motion judge to reconsider that opinion's admissibility. Given our above discussion concerning Dr. Dodson's opinion, the motion judge may need to reassess his conclusion that Dr. Lemen could rely on Dr. Dodson's bridge, grounded in reliable science, between the scientific data regarding the association between unrefined chrysotile and asbestos-related diseases and the association between friction products and asbestos-related diseases. [16] The motion judge misstated the evidence when he concluded that Dr. Lemen's use of the Bradford Hill criteria to reach his conclusion that exposure to friction products increases the risk of asbestos disease reflects an appreciation for and adherence to a sound scientific methodology. [17] The motion judge, apparently, misconstrued Dr. Lemen's testimony. Based on the record, Dr. Lemen did not directly apply the Bradford Hill considerations to the question of whether exposure to chrysotile fibers from friction products causes mesothelioma and the other asbestos related diseases; rather, Dr. Lemen only applied the criteria with respect to general chrysotile. Dr. Lemen did so because [h]e is also of the opinion, based on Dr. Dodson's research and other peer-reviewed research, that there is no scientifically justifiable reason to exclude exposure to friction products from this comprehensive body of scientific evidence. [18] Dr. Lemen acknowledged the assumptions underlying his opinion: Q: Is it your opinion that working on cars, being exposed to friction products, increases the risk of mesothelioma? A: It is my opinion that working on cars in situations where fibers are given off and they are asbestos fibers, that those fibers will increase the risk of that individual for developing an asbestos-related disease. Q: Now you assume, don't you, in reaching that conclusion that the fibers that are released have the same biological ability or biological propensities as chrysotile fibers that were studied in other areas, right? A: That is true. Despite Dr. Lemen's admitted assumption, the motion judge concluded that even if the plaintiffs did not reliably establish that the chrysotile fibers from friction products are physically and chemically indistinguishable, the plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence to establish that exposure to friction products can cause lung disease. In holding that the defendants' occupation specific epidemiological evidence did not trump the plaintiffs' evidence, the motion judge relied on a proposition unsupported by the record. The motion judge stated: Finally, both Dr. Lemen and Dr. Hammar rely upon the epidemiological data out of Australia that, in their view, notwithstanding admitted shortcomings, supports an association between exposure to friction products and asbestos diseases. [19] Dr. Lemen's testimony at the Daubert hearing contradicts this finding: Q: And although your word is equivocal, I think you'll agree that none of [the epidemiological studies] have demonstrated a positive association between friction product exposures and mesothelioma? A: I think we can agree on that. It is unclear whether the motion judge's erroneous factual findings colored his ultimate decision to admit Dr. Lemen's general causation opinion. Accordingly, we remand for reconsideration and clarification consistent with this opinion.