What Are the Policy Implications of Use of Epidemiological Evidence in Mass Torts and Public Health Litigation?

By Ogolla, Christopher | St. Thomas Law Review, Fall 2010 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

What Are the Policy Implications of Use of Epidemiological Evidence in Mass Torts and Public Health Litigation?


Ogolla, Christopher, St. Thomas Law Review


  I. Introduction
       A. Problems With Mass Torts Litigation
 II. Recent Cases Where Epidemiological Evidence Was Debated
       A. Vaccine Related Cases
       B. Non-Vaccine Related Cases
III. General v. Specific Causation
 IV. Tensions Raised by the Epidemiological
     Evidentiary Standard
  V. Policy Implications of Epidemiological Evidence
 VI. Conclusion

I. INTRODUCTION

Courts sometimes deal with public health problems where the cause of harm to one individual or a group of individuals cannot be established. (1) In such cases, epidemiology is used to help define a relationship which links the harm and the cause. (2) In mass tort cases, epidemiologic studies are used either to refute or to support claims involving an increased risk of disease from exposure to a toxic substance. (3) Consequently, how to use epidemiology when deciding mass tort cases is becoming an increasingly important question in public health law. (4) Courts use epidemiological evidence to decide cases where a causal connection can be established between the exposure and the outcome. (5) In addition, courts use epidemiology for events that either have no "eyewitness or disproportionately involve certain types of products for which 'traditional' forms of evidence of causation are lacking." (6)

Recently, epidemiology has become a familiar form of proof in mass torts litigation, and those who are considered epidemiologists are often sought as expert witnesses in these cases. (7) However, the necessary evidentiary requirement of epidemiology studies occasionally does not coincide well with the basic principles of causation in tort law. (8) For example, even when presented with overwhelming epidemiological evidence, juries have sometimes returned a verdict for plaintiffs, (9) which indicates that some juries are not convinced by epidemiological evidence.

There are two imperative questions here: (1) how does epidemiology affect mass tort litigation; and (2) what relative weight should the courts give to epidemiological evidence? These questions are particularly significant in the area of causation. In order to establish causation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that it is "more probable than not" that the harm being complained of would not have occurred had the defendant followed the appropriate standard of care. (10) From prior case law, courts have derived rules for causation, namely the "but for" test and the "substantial factor test." (11) Under the first test, the defendant's conduct is deemed to be a cause of the harm "if the [harm] would not have occurred but for that conduct." (12) However, under the second test, the defendant's conduct is a cause of the harm if that conduct was a substantial factor in producing the harm. (13)

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving causation, which is generally an issue of fact. (14) The plaintiff must introduce support indicating a reasonable basis for the conclusion that the defendant's conduct was "more likely than not ... a cause in fact" of the outcome. (15) However, courts do not require the plaintiff to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt. (16) The plaintiff need not entirely negate the possibility that something other than the defendant's conduct caused the harm. (17) It is sufficient for the plaintiff to introduce evidence from which a reasonable person may conclude that it is more probable than not that the defendant caused the event. (18) The preceding standard is generally known as the preponderance of the evidence standard, which means that it must be greater than fifty percent. (19) Unlike traditional tort law, which follows the preponderance of the evidence standard, epidemiology relies on statistical significance and is not necessarily based on the greater half of the evidence. (20) In public health litigation, for example, statistical evidence based on aggregate data is sometimes introduced to show that the defendants created a statistically significant increase in the likelihood that the harm would occur.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

What Are the Policy Implications of Use of Epidemiological Evidence in Mass Torts and Public Health Litigation?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?