The Abuse of Medical Diagnostic Practices in Mass Litigation

The Case of Silica

Stephen J. Carroll, Lloyd Dixon, James M. Anderson, Thor Hogan, Elizabeth M. Sloss

ResearchPublished Nov 13, 2009

Litigation over injuries due to the inhalation of respirable silica dust in the workplace skyrocketed beginning in 2001, raising concerns that silica litigation would become a mass tort with similarities to the asbestos litigation that had occurred in the previous 30 years. However, the litigation collapsed soon after the discovery of numerous abuses in the procedures used to diagnose the injuries. The uncovering of grossly inadequate diagnosing practices was a significant success for the tort system in handling a mass tort. However, there is no guarantee that similar practices would be uncovered should they be used in the future. This report reviews the court proceedings that led to the uncovering of abusive diagnostic practices in silica litigation. It then identifies several areas in which changes in litigation practices and procedures could increase the likelihood that similar diagnosing practices would be uncovered in the future or prevented from occurring in the first place.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Carroll, Stephen J., Lloyd Dixon, James M. Anderson, Thor Hogan, and Elizabeth M. Sloss, The Abuse of Medical Diagnostic Practices in Mass Litigation: The Case of Silica. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2009. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR774.html.
BibTeX RIS

The research described in this report was conducted by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice, a unit of the RAND Corporation. This research was supported by the National Industrial Sand Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, and the Coalition for Litigation Justice.

This publication is part of the RAND technical report series. RAND technical reports, products of RAND from 2003 to 2011, presented research findings on a topic limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; discussions of the methodology employed in research; literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; and preliminary findings. All RAND technical reports were subject to rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.