Mesothelioma Asbestos

Like millions of Americans before me, I was called to jury duty. Like a smaller number, I was actually placed on a jury.
In voir dire, we were told this was a product liability case, but gossip around the jury room lumped this one as "an asbestos case."
In the opening arguments, however, plaintiff's counsel made it clear that this was about the patient's mental anguish, pain, and suffering from the chemotherapy allegedly caused by the use of an asbestos-causing product used commonly by construction electricians. Oh, and the plaintiff has an 84 pack-year history of tobacco use.
But with the very first witness, it became clear that the case would revolve around what wsas in the medical record and how the patient-who-became-the-plaintiff perceived that information.
The plaintiff's expert witness, a pathologist with appointments at Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, read his report where he noted the single, readable stained slide he received from the counsel was "consistent with" mesothelioma. Much was made on both sides about why he would have written it that way. But the damning part was yet to come.
On cross examination, defense counsel had the pathologist read from the patient's medical record various correspondences to and from plaintiff's attending physician. In one letter the diagnosis was mesothelioma; in the next it was lung cancer; in the third it was "cancer, possibly mesothelioma;" in the fourth it was "lung cancer (mesothelioma)."

Then my heart went out to the patient, not because of the diagnosis of mesothelioma. No, I thought of what a roller coaster ride he and his family must have had if they had tried to be informed healthcare consumers and searched these two terms on the Internet.
The pathologist was, of course, dismayed to be used in such a way on the stand by opposing counsel, and commented on the "inexactness" of the language among the letters.
After he was done, I had to commend the pathologist for being a good witness ... for the defense. He had certainly opened wide the door for whether this was lung cancer, presumably caused by the extensive smoking history, or mesothelioma, caused by using the asbestos-containing product on trial.

The plaintiff's counsel then called the plaintiff to testify by satellite feed. We heard about the packing compound with the asbestos rope in it, but mostly we were treated to the rigors of chemotherapy and the trauma of its many side effects. As counsel questioned his witness about the nausea, vomiting, and weakness caused by chemotherapy, I could feel my fellow jurors recoil in horror at the thought of what this man had gone through. I thought of leeches and lobotomies and laetrile and at that point, I was certain that chemotherapy was on trial, not the asbestos-containing product. I was certain too that this case was about the ravages of aging and medicine's failure to provide a fountain of youth; this case was about not going gently into that long good night, as Dylan Thomas put it; this case had "raging into the night" written all over it.
After three days (of what was supposed to be an eight-day trial), the case was mysteriously settled, and the jury was graciously thanked and dismissed. We were invited to talk with the attorneys from both sides who were curious to know how we felt. It was good to hear the other jurors talk about their views of the case, because, of course, we had been repeatedly admonished NOT to talk about it among ourselves, or at all.

Did it haunt me? I went home from jury duty and did an Internet search. For lung cancer, I got 13.8 million hits ... the first page was all about the condition and how to work with your doctor. For mesothelioma, I got 536 hits ... the first page was all by attorneys touting they could get you millions.
And we wonder why frivolous lawsuits persist.

From Gale Group