Daubert hearing is not a 'search for truth' Michigan court rules.

A Michigan trial court properly admitted an expert's opinion that an automobile brake mechanic's exposure to asbestos in brake linings can cause mesothelioma, despite disagreement between expert witnesses over the significance of epidemiological studies, a state appellate court has ruled. (Chapin v. A & L Parts, Inc., No. 257917 (Mich. App. Jan. 30, 2007).)

The plaintiff, Phillip Chapin, was diagnosed with mesothelioma at age 60, after working 45 years as an auto brake mechanic. Part of his job involved grinding brake linings that contained chrysotile asbestos. He sued various brake manufacturers, automakers, and their insurers, alleging that they failed to warn him about or protect him against the risks of asbestos exposure.

At an evidentiary hearing, Chapin's epidemiology expert, Richard Allen Lemen, and the defendants' epidemiology expert, Michael Goodman, agreed that the only known cause of mesotheliomawas exposure to asbestos, but that the epidemiological studies that had analyzed mesothelioma among auto brake mechanics had failed to demonstrate an association between asbestos-related brake products and the disease.

The experts seriously disagreed, however, over whether the causal connection between brake dust and mesothelioma could nevertheless be made.

The trial court ruled admissible Lemen's opinion that there was ample scientific evidence linking mesothelioma to occupational exposure to brake products containing asbestos when all sources of data, including the epidemiological studies, were considered.

The appellate court found that the trial court had properly exercised its discretion in finding Lemen's opinion reliable, because "a Daubert-type hearing of this kind is not a judicial search for truth." Rather, an evidentiary hearing "is merely a threshold inquiry to ensure that the trier of fact is not called upon to rely in whole or in part on an expert opinion that is only masquerading as science."

"The trial court's role as gatekeeper does not require it to search for absolute truth, to admit only uncontested evidence, or to resolve genuine scientific disputes," Judge Alton Davis wrote for the majority. The fact that the two experts gave different weight and significance to the relevant research did not necessarily make either of their conclusions unreliable, the court found, because science involves regular disagreements between respected members of any given field.

Moreover, the "proper role of a trial court at a Daubert hearing is only to filter out expert evidence that is unreliable, not to admit only evidence that is unassailable. The inquiry is not into whether an expert's opinion is necessarily correct or universally accepted. The inquiry is into whether the opinion is rationally derived from a sound foundation," Davis wrote.

David Parker of Detroit, who represented Chapin, said the defendants had argued that the only way to establish causation is by performing analyses that have control groups. In doing so, they were trying to use Daubert to demand that courts tell researchers what they have to do in studying causation, rather than use Daubert to screen out science that is not in the mainstream, Parker said.

The defendants have sought expedited review before the Michigan Supreme Court, contending that the ruling will have a significant effect in other asbestos cases.

Parker, however, noted that the decision would not apply to a large number of cases because most asbestos claims do not involve mesothelioma and most plaintiffs in mesothelioma cases aren't brake workers.