Implant ruling attacked

Friday, Dec. 20, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

Attorney Geoff White also criticized the order by U.S. District Judge Robert Jones in Portland, saying the prohibition on the use of expert testimony by plaintiffs contradicts higher court rulings.

"It flies in the face of the 9th Circuit," White said on Thursday.

Jones' ruling, made public on Tuesday, bars women in about 70 Oregon cases from using expert testimony to back claims that the implants caused health problems.

Manufacturers long have argued that no scientific evidence links the health problems to implants.

But White said Jones' order conflicts with a 1994 ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco involving a California case.

That opinion, written by Judge Procter Hug Jr., "specifically concluded that the science was there to support the link between breast implants and disease and that it was good science," White said.

The 9th Circuit ruling upheld a $7.3 million jury award to a California woman against Dow Corning Corp.

Dow Corning appealed the judgement, in part on grounds that expert testimony presented by the plaintiffs was not based on generally accepted scientific principles and therefore was inadmissible during trial.

White was one of several lawyers who represented an Elko woman in a breast implant case here against Dow Chemical Co., a parent company of Dow Corning.

In October 1995, a Washoe District Court jury awarded Charlotte Mahlum $3.9 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages. Her husband received $200,000.