A fundamental tenet of toxicology is that “the dose makes the poison.” Thus, in toxic tort cases, courts routinely require plaintiffs to demonstrate not just some exposure to an alleged harm but “evidence from which the trier of fact could conclude that the plaintiff was exposed to levels of toxins sufficient to cause the harm complained of.” In fact, “[d]ose is the single most important factor to consider in evaluating whether an alleged exposure caused a specific adverse effect.” This article addresses some recent cases that several courts have issued, offering a consensus that no matter what the plaintiff’s expert in an asbestos case calls it, the “every exposure” opinion should be excluded because it lacks a sound toxicological basis and there is no reliable scientific methodology employed in reaching it.

Read the article here.