•  
  •  
 

St. Thomas Law Review

First Page

157

Document Type

Article

Abstract

The distinctions between the standards of proof employed in epidemiology and in law inform the central thesis of this paper. This analysis began by describing the role of epidemiology in mass torts and public health litigation. It later argues that because mass torts cover such a wide area, there are several problems related to epidemiology in litigation, particularly scientific uncertainty and inconsistent factual claims. Part II discusses recent cases where epidemiological evidence was raised and debated, distinguishing between vaccine-related and non-vaccine-related cases. Courts have differentiated vaccine-related cases from non-vaccine-related cases, principally because Congress enacted a vaccine act designed to compensate victims. In both vaccine and nonvaccine related cases, the legal concepts of specific and general causation are extensively used. Part III examines the two legal concepts of general and specific causation in epidemiology and how courts have tried to balance the epidemiological causation standard with general torts principles. Part IV analyzes how epidemiological evidence differs from other evidence in terms of the tensions it raises for the legal system, and argues that despite these tensions, courts still hold that causation must be shown by epidemiological evidence. Part V discusses the policy implications of what gets used in court and argues that reliance on human studies, as the best evidence, may be misplaced since one cannot freely experiment on human beings. This section also considers whether epidemiologists should get involved in policy issues, discussing two divergent schools of thought. The paper concludes by suggesting that although the presence of epidemiological evidence does not necessarily end the inquiry; where the evidence is available, it should be used only if the evidence meets a heightened standard. The heightened standard argued for in this paper is a screening standard for admission that considers not only a doubling of the risk by the exposure, but also jury instructions that clearly inform the jury of the strengths and weaknesses of epidemiological studies. The paper also calls for the American College of Epidemiology and the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists ("CSTE") to develop model guidelines for the use of epidemiological evidence in the courtroom. These guidelines could mirror the public health law bench books developed for some states to refer to during public health emergencies.

Download

Share

COinS