“The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat… .”[1]
On the appeal from the MDL court’s exclusion of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses’ causation opinions, Judge Calebresi’s acknowledged both the complete uncertainty of any causal claim,[2] as
Tortini
Tortini, published by Nathan A. Schachtman, focuses on the intersection of scientific evidence and legal standards in tort litigation. The blog critically examines issues such as causation analysis in toxic torts, the reliability of expert testimony, and the influence of biases in scientific research related to litigation. It covers topics including the evaluation of epidemiological studies, the role of regulatory science, conflicts of interest in expert opinions, and the application of legal standards like Rule 702 and Daubert in court. The blog also discusses controversies around pharmaceutical safety, environmental toxicants, and the challenges of presenting scientific evidence in judicial proceedings.
Blog Authors
Latest from Tortini
Acetaminophen Part 5 – 2d Circuit 2d Guesses MDL Trial Judge
On July 13, 2026, in an opinion by Senior Judge Guido Calebresi, the Second Circuit delivered its opinion. Given Judge Calebresi’s confusion at oral argument, between causation and association, and his conflation of precautionary action with causal assessment, informed readers…
Fiber Follies
As with any potential toxic exposure, the dose and duration of exposure of asbestos matter. And these factors matter varyingly in connection to specific outcomes of interest. By 1930, virtually everyone understood that all the asbestos minerals caused asbestosis. While…
Acetaminophen – Lobbying the Court – Part 4
Appellate advocates are limited to trial court records. The judgment winner may raise arguments, based upon those factual records, which would support the judgment, whether they raised or made the arguments below, and regardless whether the court below actually considered…
Acetaminophen – Distortion of Scientific Publication – Part 3
Both in acetaminophen litigation and in performative political assertion, the Prada Review has loomed large. As noted in an earlier post, one of the authors of the Prada Review was Andrea Baccarelli, who was also a key witness for plaintiffs…
Acetaminophen – Partisan Politics Corrupts Scientific Assessments – Part 2
Most medico-legal controversies over causation resolve in the pages of medical journals and within the walls of state and federal courthouses. The claim that pregnant women’s ingestion of acetaminophen causes their children to have an increased risk of autism, however,…
Acetaminophen – No Cure for Bad Jurisprudence – Part 1
INTRODUCTION
Two weeks ago, the Second Circuit reversed the summary judgment entered by Judge Denise Cote, in the acetaminophen autism litigation. Judge Cote had excluded the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses on causation, under Rule 702, in a lengthy, careful opinion that…
The Recrudescence of Ferebee – Part Two
In 2010, almost 30 years after Ferebee was decided, the Solicitor General cited the case in an amicus brief before the Supreme Court case, in Matrixx Iniatives, Inc. v. Siracusano. The case was a securities fraud class action, which was…
The Recrudescence of Ferebee – Part One
BIAS EVERYWHERE
For those of us who litigate health effects claims, either as pursuers or defenders, the pathology of science is often as important and interesting as pristine methodology. Identifying the pathological epistemology (patho-epistemology) of our adversaries’ claims, in the facts and…