| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Economy |
| Silicosis, Inc. - and why tort reform is so important |
| 2005-10-27 |
| It has taken more than 70 bankrupt companies and a clogged legal system for prosecutors to see that the asbestos and silicosis lawsuit machines are a racket, but better late than never. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has now convened a grand jury, and documents we've reviewed that are part of that probe are eye-popping. A key figure is George Martindale, a doctor who in a Texas case had repudiated thousands of silicosis and asbestos diagnoses. New York prosecutors took an interest, and Dr. Martindale was subpoenaed in April. The documents he provided to the grand jury offer a tantalizing window on asbestos/silicosis litigation. First, some medical background: In order to get an asbestosis or silicosis "diagnosis" (and thus be eligible to sue), a claimant must see a qualified doctor who establishes exposure to silica or asbestos, conducts a physical exam and pulmonary tests, and examines an X-ray. A second doctor, known as a B-reader, will sometimes also look at the X-ray as a check of that part of the evidence. The second reader does not provide an actual diagnosis. According to Dr. Martindale, he had thought he was merely a B-reader. He says he was told by the screening company that hired him, N&M, that a doctor named Ray Harron (more on him later) had done all the hard work and that he would simply provide the second X-ray opinion. When Dr. Martindale started his job, he says he wrote his own conclusions. But not long thereafter, N&M asked him to sign a form-paragraph that included the words "the diagnosis of silicosis." Dr. Martindale says he believed this wording simply meant that he was agreeing with Dr. Harron's original X-ray findings, not providing a diagnosis. Only later in October 2004, says Dr. Martindale, did he discover that plaintiffs' attorneys had listed him as the "diagnosing physician" in their asbestos and silicosis lawsuits. He learned this when he was asked by an asbestos defense attorney to submit to a deposition. Soon after, he received a call from Billy H. Davis, Jr., a plaintiff attorney in the Texas office of Campbell, Cherry, which had filed suits based on Dr. Martindale's work. Dr. Martindale recounts this conversation in a later letter to Mr. Davis, a copy of which has landed with the feds: "I was soon contacted by you [Mr. Davis]. You said you wanted to retain me as an expert witness before the deposition. I declined. During this conversation, I learned that you had cited me as the diagnosing physician in certain silicosis cases. I told you that I personally had made no diagnoses, that I had not examined any of the patients, and that I had only determined whether the readings were consistent with the disease previously diagnosed. Your response was 'I certainly would hate to hear you say that at your deposition.'" That's our emphasis, but wow. It sure sounds like coaching a witness not to blow the whistle on phony illness claims. It's true that, having been dragged into this investigation, Dr. Martindale has every incentive to suggest he was duped by lawyers and N&M. He profited handsomely from his alliance, raking in more than a quarter-million dollars from 2001 to 2002 for having looked at some 7,500 X-rays. Yet assuming he's telling the truth, his testimony is illuminating. It raises the possibility that N&M provided legal language that allowed lawyers to claim that Dr. Martindale had provided them with diagnoses, even though that is not what Dr. Martindale had done. Why bother to do this? Well, one reason may have been that Dr. Harron had already submitted more than 50,000 asbestos diagnoses, and defendant companies were eyeing him suspiciously. Moreover, it might have raised alarms if Dr. Harron had provided both silicosis and asbestosis diagnoses for the same patients -- a little too legally convenient, not to mention medically rare. As for the plaintiff lawyers, Dr. Martindale's correspondence with Mr. Davis shows the attorney knew nearly a year ago that Dr. Martindale did not intend to stand by the supposed "diagnoses." Yet it is not clear that Mr. Davis has withdrawn any of his asbestos suits. We called Mr. Davis and a representative for N&M but were unable to reach them at deadline yesterday. This is only one part of what looks to be an extensive Justice Department probe of asbestos and silicosis suits. The subpoena reveals that the grand jury was convened to examine the serious charges of conspiracy and fraud. Separate court records we've reviewed show that New York prosecutors have also met with representatives of G-I Holdings, an asbestos-plagued company that took the rare step of countersuing plaintiff attorneys -- alleging everything from fraud to tampering with documents. All of this is showing that the coterie of doctors, lawyers and screening companies behind the silicosis suits were also behind the bigger asbestos mess. Companies such as N&M helped generate X-rays for big asbestos law firms. And the Manville Trust, which has fielded nearly 700,000 asbestos claims, has found that a mere 15 doctors in the country were responsible for nearly 30% of its claimants. Dr. Harron is at the top of list. To the extent that prosecutors are beginning to sort out how these folks conducted their "business," they are helping to police the courts of phony suits and throwing a light on what could turn out to be one of the biggest legal scams in U.S. history. We hope they keep digging. |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #4 The taxpayers of Maryland would throw a ginormous party if we could be rid of Asbestos King and baseball owner Peter Angelos... |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-10-27 10:41 |
| #3 loss of license as well - they have no other employable skills outside ring-toss at the Carny |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-27 10:11 |
| #2 Same for the $billions lawyers extorted in cigarette litigation. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-10-27 09:58 |
| #1 My fantasy: The trial lawyers behind this destructive war on corporate America are convicted of fraud and are forced to give back all their ill-gotten gains to the stockholders of the bankrupt companies, and the not-yet bankrupt companies, thereby de-funding the main source of Democrat Party revenue. |
| Posted by: jolly roger 2005-10-27 09:50 |