Hindsight bias, Daubert, and the silicone breast implant litigation making the case for court-appointed experts in complex medical and scientific litigation

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 154-179

  Worthington, Debra L ^a   Stallard, Merrie Jo ^b   Price, Joseph M ^c   Goss, Peter J ^c  

^a AUBURN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Litigation Insights   (United States)

^c LLP   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044533111     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.8.2.154     Document Type: Article

References (137)

1. Agans, R. P., & Shaffer, L. S. (1994). The hindsight bias: The role of the availability heuristic and perceived risk. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 439-449.
2. Allison v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, 184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).
3. Angell, M. (1996). Science on trial: The clash of medical evidence and the law in the breast implant case. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
4. Arkes, H. R. (1989). Principles in judgment/decision making research pertinent to legal proceedings. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 7, 429-456.
5. Arkes, H. R., Guilmette, T. J., Faust, D., & Hart, K. (1988). Eliminating the hindsight bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 305-307.
6. Arkes, H. R., & Schipani, C. A. (1994). Medical malpractice v. The business judgment rule: Differences in hindsight bias. Oregon Law Review, 73, 587-638.
7. Baron, J., & Hershey, J. C. (1988). Outcome bias in decision evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 569-579.
8. Berger, M. A., Miles, S. J., & Miles, N. (1997). Court-appointed experts-Their rules and roles. DRI: Drug and Medical Device Litigation Seminar, (K1-K14). Chicago: Defense Research Institute.
9. Black, B. (1988). A unified theory of scientific evidence. Fordham Law Review, 56, 595-695.
10. Bondurant, S., Ernster, V., & Herdman, R. (Eds.). (1999). Safety of silicone breast implants. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Brekke, N. J., Enko, P. J., & Clavet, G. (1991). Of juries and court-appointed experts: The effect of nonadversarial vs. adversarial testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 451-475.
12. Brown, H. (1999). Procedural issues under Daubert. Houston Law Review, 36, 1133-1191.
13. Browne, M. N., Keeley, T. J., & Hiers, W. J. (1998). The epistemological role of expert witnesses and toxic torts. American Business Law Journal, 36, 1-72.
14. Casey v. Ohio Medical Products, 877 F. Supp. 1380 (1995).
15. Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Kelly, J. R. (1988). Cognition, attitudes and decision-making in search and seizure cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 93-113.
16. Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Perry, J. L. (1989). Juror decision-making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 291-310.
17. Castleman, M. (1991, March). The enemy within. California Lawyer, 44-48, 104-106.
18. Cecil, J. S., & Willging, T. E. (1994a). Accepting Daubert's invitation: Defining the role for court-appointed experts in assessing scientific validity. Emory Law Journal, 43, 995-1070.
19. Cecil, J. S., & Willging, T. E. (1994b). Court appointed experts. Moore's Federal Practice: Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (pp. 547-555). San Francisco: Matthew Bender & Co. Inc.
20. Chan, E. J. (1995). The "brave new world" of Daubert: True peer review, editorial peer review and scientific validity. New York University Law Review, 70, 100-134.
21. Christensen-Szalanski, J. J., & Willham, C. F. (1991). The hindsight bias: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 147-168.
22. Cronin, T. D., & Greenberg, R. L. (1970). Our experiences with the silastic gel breast prosthesis. Plastic Reconstructive Surgery, 46, 1-7.
23. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
24. Davies, M. F. (1987). Reduction of hindsight bias by restoration of foresight perspective: Effectiveness of foresight-encoding and hindsight-retrieval strategies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40, 50-68.
25. DeCholnoky, T. (1970). Augmentation mamoplasty: Survey of Complications in 10,941 patients by 265 surgeons. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 45, 573-577.
26. Developments in the law: Confronting the new challenges of scientific evidence: Ad-dressing the problems of complex and scientific evidence. (1995). Handvard Law Review, 108, 1583-1605.
27. Diagnostic tests for silicone breast disease. (1996, February 9). CDC Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, 111-112.
28. Diamond, B. A., Hulka, B. S., Kerkvliet, N. I., & Tugwell, P. (1998). Silicone breast implants in relation to connective tissue diseases and immunologie dysfunction: A report by a national science panel to the honorable Sam C. Pointer Jr., Coordinating Judge for the Federal Breast Implant Multi-District Litigation. [Retrieved April 3, 2001 from http://www.fjc.gov/ BREIMLIT/SCIENCEyreport.htm]
29. Doss v. Median Medical Corporation, et al, CN 92-14155 (TX Bist. Ct., 189 Jud. Dist. 1994).
30. Edworthy, S., Martin, L., Barr, S. G., Birdsell, D. C., Brant, R. F., & Fritzler, M. J. (1998). A clinical study of the relationship between silicone breast implants and connective tissue disease. Journal of Rheumatology, 25, 254-260.
31. Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (1997). Modern scientific evidence. The law and science of expert testimony (Vol. II). St. Paul, MN: West.
32. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 104, 2000.
33. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 104 (a), 2000.
34. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702, 2000.
35. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 706, 2000.
36. Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 706(c), 2000.
37. Feigenson, N. (2000). Legal blame: How jurors think and talk about accidents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
38. Feuer v. Median Medical Corp., No. 92 Civ. 9496 S.D.N.Y. (1996).
39. Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ Foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288-299.
40. Fischhoff, B. (1982). Debiasing. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (p. 422-444). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
41. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
42. Foster, K. R., & Huber, P. (1997). Judging science: Scientific knowledge and the federal courts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Ebook retrieved November 17, 2001, from NetLibrary database]
43. Freimuth, V. S., & Van Nevel, J. P. (1981). Reaching the public: The asbestos awareness campaign. Journal of Communication, 31, 155-167.
44. Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., Friedman, P. G., & Kreps, G. L. (1991). Investigating communication: An introduction to research methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
45. Frye v. United States. 293 F 1013 (1923).
46. Gabriel, S. E., O'Fallow, W. M., Kurland, L. T., Beard, G. M., Woods, J. E., & Melton, L. J. (1994). Risk of connective-tissue disease and other disorders after breast implantation. New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1697.
47. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L., & Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges of judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert World. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433-458.
48. Gelhaus, L. (1999, August). A case against CASE. Trial, 35(8), p. 11. [Retrieved June 21, 2000, from Infotrac database]
49. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
50. Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. P. (1976). Living with television: the violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 172-199.
51. Grant v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, No. 93-1275 (U.S.D.C. Arizona, 2000).
52. Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation, 947 F. Supp. 1387 (D. Ore. 1996).
53. Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1999). Juror judgments in civil cases: Hindsight effects on judgments of liability for punitive damage. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 597-614.
54. Havard v. Baxter International, Inc., No. 1:92CV0863 (S.D. Ohio, 2000).
55. Hawkins, S. A., & Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: Biased judgments of past events after the outcomes are known. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 311-327.
56. Heggers, J. P., Kossovsky, N., Parsons, R. W., Robson, M. C., Pelley, R. P., & Raine, T. J. (1983). Annals of Plastic Surgery, 77(1), 38-45.
57. Hench, L. L. (1980). Biomaterials. Science, 208, 826-831.
58. Holden, C. (1998, January 2). Supreme Court clarifies junk science stance. Science, 279, p. 35.
59. Hooper, L. L., Cecil, J. S., & Willging, T. E. (2001). Assessing causation in breast implant litigation: The role of science panels. Law and Contemporary Problems, 64, 139-189.
60. Hopkins v. Dow Corning Corporation, 33 F. 3d 1116 (9th Cir 1994).
61. Hulka, B. S., Kerkvliet, N. L., & Tugwell, P. (2000). Experience of a scientific panel formed to advise the federal judiciary on silicone breast implants. New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 812-815.
62. Improving judicial gatekeeping: Technical advisors and scientific evidence. (1997). Harvard Law Review, 110, 941-958.
63. Imwinkelreid, E. J. (1981). Evidence law and tactics for the proponents of scientific evidence. In E. J. Imwinkelreid (Ed.), Scientific and expert evidence. (2nd ed., pp. 33-74). New York: Practicing Law Institute.
64. In re Breast Implants Cases, 942 F. Supp. 958 (E. and S. D. N. Y. 1996).
65. In re DES Cases No. CV 91-3784, 1991 WL 270477. (E. D. N. Y., Dec. 6, 1991).
66. In re Joint Eastern and Southern District Asbestos Litigation, 1774 F. Supp 116 (E. & S. D. N. Y. 1991).
67. Independent Review Group. (1998). Silicone gel breast implants: Report of Independent Review Group. [Retrieved April 2, 2001 from http://www.silicone- review.gov.uk/silicone/index.htm]
68. Iverson, R. E. (1991). National survey shows overwhelming satisfaction with breast implants. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 88, 546-547.
69. Johnson v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Corp., et al., CN 91-21770 (TX Dist. Ct., 125 Jud. Dist. 1992).
70. Johnson, J. D., & Meischke, H. (1993). Cancer-related channel selection: An extension for a sample of women who have had a mammogram. Women and Health, 20, 31-44.
71. Judge to decide fairness of breast implant panel. (1999, April 14). [Retrieved April 2, 2001 from http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9904/14/breast.implant/]
72. Judges' Opinions on Procedural Issues: A survey of state and federal trial judges who spend at least half their time on general civil cases. (1989). Boston University Law Review, 69, 731-768.
73. Kamin, K. A., & Rachlinski, J. J. (1995). Ex post ≠ ex ante: Determining liability in hindsight. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 89-104.
74. Kee, F., Teleford, A. M., Donaghy, P., & O'Doherty, A. (1993). Enhancing mammography uptake: Who do women listen to? European Journal for Cancer Prevention, 2, 37-42.
75. Kaiser, J. (1997, January 3). Breast-implant ruling sends a message. Science, 275, p. 21.
76. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation and information in hypotheses testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228.
77. Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574-586.
78. Kovera, M. B., McAuIiff, B. D., & Hebert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: The effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.
79. Kumagai, Y., Abe, C., & Shiokawa, Y. (1979). Scleroderma after cosmetic surgery: Four cases of human adjuvant disease. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 22(5), 532-537.
80. Kwnho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999).
81. LaBine, S., & LaBine, G. (1996). Determinations of negligence and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 501-516.
82. Lehman, D. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the effects of under-graduate training on reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 26, 952-960.
83. Lesser, M. (1953). Silicones in medicine and pharmacy. Drug and Cosmetic Industry, 72, 616-617, 688-692.
84. Lin, P. E. (1998). Opening the gates to scientific evidence in toxic exposure cases: Medical monitoring and Daubert. The Review of Litigation, 17, 551-588.
85. Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1231-1243.
86. Lowe, D. J. (1992/1993). An empirical examination of the hindsight bias phenomenon in evaluation of auditor decisions (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(07), A2444.
87. MacAbee, G. N. (1995). United States Supreme Court rules on expert testimony. Pediatrics, 95, 934-936.
88. Manning, A. (1999, April 14). Breast-implant plaintiffs claim bias negates study. USA Today. [Retrieved April 2, 2000, from WESTLAW on-line database (1999 WL 6839731)]
89. Mark, M. M. (1999). Social science evidence in the courtroom: Daubert and beyond? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 175-193.
90. Meister v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 267F. 3d 1123 (D.C. Cir 2001).
91. Menon, J. W. (1995). Adversarial medical and scientific testimony and lay jurors: A proposal for medical malpractice reform. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 21, 281-300.
92. Niedermeier, K. E., Kerr, N. L., & Messé, L. A. (1999). Jurors' use of naked statistical evidence: Exploring bases and implications of the Wells effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 533-542.
93. Nietzel, M. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Kern, M. J. (1999). Juries: The current state of the empirical literature. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 23-52). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
94. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
95. Palcheff-Wiemer, M., Concannon, J. J., Conn, V. S., & Puckett, C. L. (1993). The impact of the media on women with breast implants. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 92, 779-785.
96. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1981). Juror decision-making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 246-287.
97. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1991). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519-557.
98. Pointer, S. C., & U.S. District Court Alabama. (1996). In re: Silicone Gel Breast Implant Products Litigation (MDL 926). Order No. 3IE: Directions to National Science Panel Under FRE 706.
99. Poythress, N. G., Schumacher, J., Wiener, R., & Murrin, M. (1993). Procedural justice judgments of alternative procedures for resolving medical malpractice claims. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1639-1658.
100. Price, J. M., & Gates, K. G. (1996). Junk science in the courtroom: Causes, effects and controls. Hamline Law Review, 19, 395-407.
101. Price, J. M., & Rosenberg, E. S. (1998). The war against junk science: The use of expert panels in complex medical-legal scientific litigation. Biomaterials, 19, 1425-1432.
102. Price, J. M., & Rosenberg, E. S. (2000). The silicone gel breast implant controversy: The rise of expert panels and the fall of junk science. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 93, 31-34.
103. Rachlinski, J. J. (1998). A positive psychological theory of judging in hindsight. University of Chicago Law Review, 65, 571-625.
104. Reisinger, K. B. (1998). Court-appointed expert panels: A comparison of two models. Indiana Law Review, 32, 225-258.
105. Riley, S. E. (1996). The end of an ERA: Junk science departs products liability. Defense Counsel Journal, 63, 502-508.
106. Rosenbaum, J. T. (1997). Lessons from litigation over silicone breast implants: A call for activism by scientists. Science, 276, 524-526.
107. Rosenthal, P. (1983). Nature of jury response to the expert witness. Journal of Forensic Science, 28, 528-531.
108. Saks, M. (2000). The aftermath of Daubert: An evolving jurisprudence of expert evidence. Jurimetrics, 40, 229-241.
109. Saks, M., & Kidd, R. (1980). Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics. Law and Society Review, 15, 123-160.
110. Sanchez-Guerrero, J., Colditz, G. A., Karlson, E. W., Hunter, D. J., Speizer, F. E., & Liang, M. H. (1995). Silicone breast implants and the risk of connective-tissue diseases and symptoms. New England Journal of Medicine, 332, 1666-1670.
111. Sanders, J. (1993). From science to evidence: The testimony on causation in the Bendectin cases. Stanford Law Review, 46, 1-43.
112. Schottenfeld, D., Burns, C. J., Gillespie, B. W., Laing, T. J., Mayes, M. D., Heeringa, S. G., & Alcser, K. H. (1994). The design of a population-based case control study of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma): Commentary of the University of Michigan study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48, 583-584.
113. Schwarzer, W. W., & Cecil, J. S. (2000). Management of expert evidence. In Federal Judicial Center, Reference manual on scientific evidence (2nd ed., pp. 39-66). Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center. [Retrieved April 2, 2001 from http://air.fjc.gov/public/fjcweb.nsf/pages/16]
114. Shuman, D. W., & Sales, B. D. (1999). The impact of Daubert and its progeny on the admissibility of behavioral and social science evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 3-15.
115. Shuman, D. W., Champagne, A., & Whitaker, E. (1996). Juror assessments of the believability of expert witnesses: A literature review. Jurimetrics, 36, 371-383.
116. Shuman, D. W., Whitaker, E., & Champagne, A. (1994). An empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in the courts - Part II. A three-city study. Jurimetrics, 34, 193-208.
117. Singer, E., & Endreny, P. M. (1993). Reporting on risk: How the mass media portray accidents, diseases, disasters, and other hazards. New York: Sage.
118. Soldo v. Sandoz Pharmaceutical Corp., Civil Action No. 98-1712 (W. D. Penn 2000) (Lee, J.).
119. Stallard, M. J., & Worthington, D. L. (1998). Reducing the hindsight bias utilizing attorney arguments. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 671-683.
120. Stapel, D. A., Reicher, S. D., & Spears, R. (1995). Contextual determinants of strategic choice: Some moderators of the availability bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 141-158.
121. Stern v. Dow Corning Corp., Case No. C-83-2348-MMP (N.D. Cal 1984).
122. Thorpe, J. F., Oelhafen, A. M., & Arnold, M. B. (2000). Court-appointed experts and technical advisors. Litigation, 26(4), 31-34, 66.
123. Toledo v. Medical Engineering Corporation, No. 136 (Philadelphia County, PA, 2000).
124. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news. New York: Free Press.
125. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
126. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 3-20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
127. U.S. Attorney General. (1986). The causes extent and policy implications of the current crisis in insurance availability and affordability. (Attorney General Tort Policy Working Group Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
128. Van Nunen, S. A., Gatenby, P. A., & Basten, A. (1982). Arthritis and Rheumatism, 25(6), 694-697.
129. Vanderford, M. L., & Smith, D. H. (1996). The silicone breast implant story: Communication and uncertainty. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
130. Vondrak, A. (1998, October 18). Junk science finally gets slammed. The Washington Times, p. B5.
131. Wade-Greaux v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1441 (1994).
132. Wasserman, D., Lempert, R. O., & Hastie, R. (1991). Hindsight and causality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 92, 683-700.
133. Webster, R. C., Hamdan, U. S., Fuleihan, N. S., Gaunt, J. M., & Smith, R. C. (1986). Injectible silicone: Its history and current status. American Journal of Cosmetic Surgery, 3, 31-39.
134. Weisman, M. H., Vecchione, T. R., Albert, D., Moore, L. T., & Mueller, M. R. (1988). Connective-tissue disease following breast augmentation: A preliminary test of the human adjuvant disease hypothesis. Journal of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, 82, 626-629.
135. Wells, G. L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 739-752.
136. Wexler, D. B., & Schopp, R. F. (1989). How and when to correct for juror hindsight bias in mental health malpractice litigation: Some preliminary observations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 7, 485-504.
137. Worthington, D. L., & Stallard, M. J. (2001). Reducing the hindsight bias: Can the expert witness help? Unpublished manuscript. Auburn University.