Carbon Monoxide

Carbon Monoxide Exposure in Cab of Semi-Truck

Challenge:

A truck driver claimed various neurological effects caused by inhalational carbon monoxide exposure while sleeping in the cab of his 18 wheel truck. There was an alleged leak under the hood due to a crack in the manifold and tear in flexible piping. We were asked to perform a toxicological review of the matter.

Solution:

Using modeling techniques, we estimated the maximum level of carbon monoxide that could have reached the cab compartment during the time that it was occupied by the claimant. Based on this information, we were able to disprove specific causation in this matter.

We determined that the claimed health effects were more significant than the potential effects given the level and duration of carbon monoxide exposure. Additionally, we prepared a chronological timeline of the claimant's medical history, before, during, and after the exposure incident and were able to demonstrate inconsistencies with the known effects of carbon monoxide at the level to which he may have been exposed. Thus, the claimant's medical records were inconsistent with the expected clinical course of the claimed exposure and as a result, our client was able to reach a very favorable settlement.

Reflection:

Using an objective medically- and scientifically-based analysis, we were able to determine potential toxicological effects and demonstrate that the potential effects differed from those claimed. Our client’s risk was significantly reduced.

House Boat Matter

Challenge:

An extended family vacationed on a house boat for one week. They claimed continuing neurological effects from carbon monoxide exposure due to a malfunctioning generator and defective design. The boat manufacturer contacted us for assistance.

Solution:

After reviewing medical records, employment records, school records and other relevant data we determined that there was no toxicologically-correct basis for the claimed health conditions. The timing and clinical presentation were inconsistent with known effects and available data concerning the involved individuals' potential carbon monoxide exposure on the boat. We were able to show that the narcotics that were being prescribed to the claimants were a more plausible alternate causation for the claimed conditions which established a favorable position for our client in negotiating settlement.

Reflection:

We were able to reduce financial risk for our client by arming them with sound medically- and scientifically-based facts based on our focused, "Can-Does-Did causation methodology." We have used this methodology successfully for many years and focuses on three major questions, each of which raises additional questions:

1. Can the agent(s) at issue produce this (these) medical conditions(s)? Are there substantial and properly relevant animal data? Is there human evidence, well-controlled epidemiological data? Are there confirmatory human toxicological data?
2. Does the patient have the claimed medical condition? Does the patient have a recognizable disease/disorder? How was the diagnosis made? Are we dealing with symptoms or objective disorders?
3. Did the agent at issue cause the medical condition(s) in this case? Have other alternate causes been properly considered and ruled out? Has the exposure been confirmed? Was the dosage sufficient considering the concentration and duration to produce the claimed condition(s)? Was the clinical pattern what one would expect from that causal agent? Is the morphological (microscopic) pattern consistent with that as a cause? Were the temporal relationship and/or latency periods appropriate?

Other Case Studies