Bostic is a mesothelioma case. Georgia-Pacific’s product, a drywall compound, contained asbestos, but the decedent was exposed to it only occasionally. He had used it maybe eight times in his life while working on home improvement projects with his dad. In contrast, the decedent had substantial exposure to asbestos from other sources during his lifetime, including the nine months he spent handling asbestos at a glass plant. Since no one disputed that exposure to asbestos causes mesothelioma, the only issue was whether exposure to Georgia-Pacific’s product caused the decedent to contract the disease.
Expanding on its previous asbestos cases, the Court held that an asbestos plaintiff must establish:
- The dose of asbestos fibers to which the plaintiff was exposed as a result of his exposure to the defendant’s product.The dose must be quantified but need not be established with mathematical precision.
- The dose from the defendant’s product must be a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s illness.The defendant’s product is not a substantial cause if, in light of the evidence of the plaintiff’s total exposure to asbestos or other toxins, reasonable persons would not regard the defendant’s product as the cause of the disease.In most cases, this will require scientifically reliable expert testimony that exposure to the defendant’s product more than doubled the plaintiff’s risk of contracting the disease.
Because the plaintiffs could satisfy neither prong of the test, the Court rendered judgment in favor of Georgia-Pacific.
While the Court specifically addressed only asbestos cases, the reasoning in Bostic is easily applicable to pharmaceutical cases. For example, in the HRT cases, plaintiffs may well have been exposed to hormone therapy drugs manufactured by a variety of companies. In a future case, the plaintiff would be required to establish not only that hormone therapy caused her cancer but also, for each manufacturer, the dose of that manufacturer’s drug she received and that the dose more than doubled her chance of contracting cancer. This additional layer of proof should make it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail.
The Court’s opinion can be found here