Defendants’ contentions: scientific methodology

Defendants argue that the Appellate Division, Second Department, decision Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. (16 AD3d 648 [2d Dept 2005]) supports their contention that their experts' opinions must derive from scientific methodology which in turn would preclude plaintiffs' experts from offering opinion testimony.

In that case, the Second Department found that plaintiff's expert, who opined that the benzene that plaintiff had been exposed to caused his acute myelogenous leukemia, had not demonstrated that he followed the three step process recommended by the World Health Organization and the National Academy of Sciences, which he asserted that he had followed, or any other scientifically sound methodology for ascertaining the benzene levels that plaintiff had been exposed to could cause or caused his leukemia.

The expert then based his opinion testimony on the fact that if large concentrations of benzene could enhance the risk of disease, Parker's exposure, which the expert was unable to quantify, must have caused his disease.

see also:

Plaintiffs' view of scientific methodology Asbestos is often found in automotive friction products
Automotive friction products may contain asbestos

Mechanics & Cancer Brake Mechanics at Risk for Asbestos Related Cancers. Free Case Review
High Risk Jobs for Lung Cancer from Asbestos Include Brake Mechanics

Court opinion Court opinion in brake mechanics' mesothelioma case
Court opinion in mesothelioma case of brake mechanics