Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1217620
 
 

Citations (1)



 
 

Footnotes (726)



 


 



The Use of Litigation Screenings in Mass Torts: A Formula for Fraud?


Lester Brickman


Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

August 11, 2008

Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 241
Southern Methodist University Law Review, Vol. 6, 2008

Abstract:     
Lawyers obtain the "mass" for some mass tort litigations by conducting screenings to sign-up potential litigants en masse. These "litigation screenings" have no intended medical benefit. Screenings are mostly held in motels, shopping center parking lots, local union offices and lawyers' offices. There, an occupational history is taken by persons with no medical training, a doctor may do a cursory physical exam, and medical technicians administer tests, including X-rays, pulmonary function tests, echocardiograms and blood tests. The sole purpose of screenings is to generate "medical" evidence of the existence of an injury to be attributed to exposure to or ingestion of defendants' products. Usually a handful of doctors ("litigation doctors") provide the vast majority of the thousands and tens of thousands of medical reports prepared for that litigation.

By my count, approximately 1,500,000 potential litigants have been screened in the asbestos, silica, fen-phen (diet drugs), silicone breast implant, and welding fume litigations. Litigation doctors found that approximately 1,000,000 of those screened had the requisite condition that could qualify for compensation, such as asbestosis, silicosis, moderate mitral or mild aortic value regurgitation or a neurological disorder. I further estimate that lawyers have spent at least $500 million and as much as $1 billion to conduct these litigation screenings, paying litigation doctors and screening companies well in excess of $250 million, and obtaining contingency fees well in excess of $13 billion.

On the basis of the evidence I review in this article, I conclude that approximately 900,000 of the 1,000,000 claims generated were based on "diagnoses" of the type that U.S. District Court Judge Janis Jack, in the silica MDL, found were "manufactured for money."

Despite the considerable evidence I review that most of the "medical" evidence produced by litigation screenings is at least specious, I find that there is no effective mechanism in the civil justice system for reliably detecting or deterring this claim generation process. Indeed, I demonstrate how the civil justice system erects significant impediments to even exposing the specious claim generation methods used in litigation screenings. Furthermore, I present evidence that bankruptcy courts adjudicating asbestos related bankruptcies have effectively legitimized the use of these litigation screenings. I also present evidence that the criminal justice system has conferred immunity on the litigation doctors and the lawyers that hire them, granting them a special dispensation to advance specious claims.

Finally, I discuss various strategies that need to be adopted to counter this assault on the integrity of the civil justice system.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 134

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: August 13, 2008 ; Last revised: February 26, 2009

Suggested Citation

Brickman, Lester, The Use of Litigation Screenings in Mass Torts: A Formula for Fraud? (August 11, 2008). Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 241; Southern Methodist University Law Review, Vol. 6, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1217620

Contact Information

Lester Brickman (Contact Author)
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law ( email )
55 Fifth Ave.
New York, NY 10003
United States
212-790-0327 (Phone)
212-790-0205 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 3,251
Downloads: 645
Download Rank: 20,571
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  726

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.344 seconds