Posted by Michael D. Corbett, Ph.D. on 3/25/09

More | Report Post

Several months ago 'Scott' posted the topic 'lead paint
case assessment', and made an analogy to 'the next
asbestos'. I feel obliged to offer some advice concerning
plaintiff claims of neurotoxic effects arising from lead.
I have recently served as an expert witness on two
lead "poisoning" cases - one for a plaintiff, the other
for the defense. The former was a true case of lead
poisoning as evidenced by a 'blood-lead level' (BLL) of
greater than 60 mcg/dL, appearance of at least one acute
symptom of poisoning, and the actual detection of a lead-
based paint chip in the child's GI tract. The other
involved a child whose BLL was a transient 12 mcg/dL,
which is only a slightly elevated BLL (above the CDC level
of 10 mcg/dL) - and not at all sufficient evidence of lead
poisoning. The plaintiff's claims of developmental delays
and neurocognitive deficits as the result of such a minor
elevation of BLL were baseless, in spite of the existence
of published epidemiological evidence (albeit very
controversial) suggesting that lead is 'unsafe at any
level'. There exist other much more important causes of
neurocognitive deficits than elevated BLL; and to
establish that lead was a significant cause or contributor
to such will be very difficult, unless the BLL is markedly
elevated (> 40 mcg/dL).

Consulting Toxicologist

ToxBoard (Gen) Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST