Page 219 - Veterinary Toxicology, Basic and Clinical Principles, 3rd Edition

186 SECTION | I General

VetBooks.ir American Board of Medical Toxicology. 40 Veterinarians Wynacht’s injuries. Beckman apparently does not dispute,
and the Court does not question, that Dr. Ziem is an experi-
may be certified by the American Board of Veterinary
41
enced physician, qualified to diagnose medical conditions
Toxicology.
The American Board of Toxicology (ABT)
was established to provide certification of individuals and treat patients. The ability to diagnose medical condi-
trained and experienced in toxicology without consider- tions is not remotely the same, however, as the ability to
ation of whether the individual has a professional Medical deduce, delineate, and describe, in a scientifically reliable
42
or Veterinary Medical degree. However, individuals manner, the causes of these medical conditions.
with an MD, or DVM, degree may also take the ABT cer-
Many combinations of education, certification and
tifying examination. Only a few individuals are certified
other criteria that fall between the two above extremes are
by more than one of these boards. Certification by other
possible for toxicology experts. These would, of course,
boards may be relevant for a particular legal case. A per-
be decided by the judge in a specific case. Once found to
son with an advanced degree in toxicology and board cer-
be an expert, the toxicologist will most likely be asked to
tification has strong support for an argument that they are
give an opinion on general causation.
a toxicologist. This may be one reason that the American
Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians
(AAVLD) has required a board certified toxicologist be GENERAL CAUSATION
on staff for an accredited laboratory. A person with an
“[T]he methodology prescribed by both the World Health
advanced degree but no board certification, or board certi-
Organization (WHO) and the National Academy of
fication but no advanced degree, may have other criteria
Sciences (NAS) for determining whether a person has
to support a finding that they are a toxicologist.
been adversely affected by a toxin” have been described
in Mancuso v. Consolidated Edison Co. as a three step
DO OTHER CRITERIA SUPPORT procedure. Scientific validity may be argued in three steps
AN ARGUMENT THAT THE PERSON “(1) the validity of the underlying principle, (2) the valid-
IS A TOXICOLOGIST? ity of the technique applying the principle, and (3) the
proper application of the technique on a particular occa-
Such other criteria may be membership in one or more sion.” Paul C. Giannelli .
toxicology organizations, peer-reviewed or other publica-
tions, research grants, scientific advisory panels, univer- First, the level of exposure of plaintiff to the toxin in ques-
sity appointments and the like. Ibid, p. 418. These criteria are tion must be determined; second, from a review of the sci-
often documented in one’s re ´sume ´ or curriculum vitae. entific literature, it must be established that the toxin is
So, a person with a professional degree, plus an capable of producing plaintiff’s illness—called “general
advanced degree in toxicology, plus board certification in causation”—and the dose/response relationship between
toxicology, plus membership in one or more toxicology the toxin and the illness—that is, the level of exposure
organizations, peer reviewed toxicology literature, grants, which will produce such an illness—must be ascertained;
service on scientific advisory panels, and a university and third, “specific causation” must be established by
appointment has very strong support for an argument that demonstrating the probability that the toxin caused this
they are an expert in toxicology. On the other hand, a per- particular plaintiff’s illness, which involves weighing
son with a professional degree, no advanced degree in the possibility of other causes of the illness—a so-called
toxicology, no board certification in toxicology, and no “differential diagnosis.” Mancuso at 399
other publications, grants, and the like has a compara-
Toxicologists may arrive at an expert opinion in a
tively weaker argument, that they are an expert in toxicol-
variety of ways.
ogy. The courts recognize the distinction between a
professional degree and expertise required in a legal set- The basis of the toxicologist’s expert opinion in a specific
ting. This distinction is aptly described in Wynacht vs case is a thorough review of the research literature and
Beckman Instruments. treatises concerning effects of exposure to the chemical at
issue. To arrive at an opinion, the expert assesses the
There is a fundamental distinction between Dr. Ziem’s abil-
strengths and weaknesses of the research studies. The
ity to render a medical diagnosis based on clinical experi-
expert also bases an opinion on fundamental concepts of
ence and her ability to render an opinion on causation of
toxicology relevant to understanding the actions of chemi-
cals in biological systems.” Manual on Scientific Evidence
40. A list of approved Medical subspecialties is available at: http://www. at 415.
abms.org/approved.asp
41. Www.abvt.org Two key legal concepts of causation have emerged as
42. www.abtox.org courts have attempted to keep junk science out of the