

Suit alleges that AMD recklessly exposed its employees to toxic substances











Comments     Threshold


RE: Who's fault?
By RW MD on 11/9/2007 12:31:32 PM , Rating: 5
I would urge that people not rush to judgment in this case. I am radiologist and computer enthusiast. My practice includes obstetrical ultrasound and frequently issues relating to pregnancy and risk of medical treatments comes up. Most commonly the cases I see involve exposure to radiation but other risks include intravenous contrast agents in pregnant women.

The problem here is the details. An observed cause of a missing limb (or portion) at birth is an amniotic band syndrome. This is where the inner lining of the gestational sac develops a perforation and a limb becomes trapped and strangulated in the lining. The mechanism is similar to a turniquet being applied to the arm.

The problem is causality. Why should an inhaled chemical lead to a rare mechanically caused abnormality at birth?

While medicine does not have all the answers, a juror should be presented with reasonable testimony as to what makes scientific sense. We have pretty good ideas about defects due to radiation and drugs. Specific kinds of deformities such as mental retardation, cleft lip, cleft palate, heart defects, spina bifida, etc. come to mind. It is not immediately clear to me the connection to amniotic band syndrome.

Expert testimony would need to be offered about how a chemical would spare the other limbs and cause amputation of one.

Again, regardless of an employer's choices about exposure during pregnancy, the connection to cause and effect really needs to be made and not assumed because of a bad outcome.

Confounding exposures need to be ruled out. Does the patient smoke? Does she live in a community with higher than average birth defects?

One should be very sympathetic to a mother whose child has a birth defect, but the case should be decided carefully by a neutral party.

As a physician, I would prefer a well-informed neutral party. Courts allow one expert for the plaintiff and another for the defense. This allows an extreme viewpoint to be presented as if it were the opinion of 50% of the medical community even if almost all of the medical community shares one view.


RE: Who's fault?
By FITCamaro on 11/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: Who's fault?
By RW MD on 11/9/2007 12:38:08 PM , Rating: 3
The brain damaged portion of the child's birth defects is something that may be more easily connected to a chemical exposure. The point I make is the same...

Avoid rush to judgement. Already people are casting blame.

My own opinion is that people should be as careful as possible during pregnancy because of the unknown. I would want to take as few chances as possible. That still doesn't change the fact that details matter a lot in these cases.

RE: Who's fault?
By MGSsancho on 11/9/2007 4:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
could she not have asked to obtain a copy of the material safety datasheet? your a doc so you know what a MSDS is. but to those who dont, its a stack of papers 3" thick or so that have to be easily available to workers. so they can know everything they might ever want to know about any possible substance they might encounter at the work place. she could have asked for qa copy and ask her doctor to translate it if she had any questions.

but i agree with you, its too early to tell what has happened

RE: Who's fault?
By Parhel on 11/9/2007 4:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't make any sense. What MSDS should she have asked for? One for each and every substance in her workplace? That isn't the purpose of an MSDS and it isn't even feasible.

Whether or not AMD is at fault, you can't blame an employee for not reading the MSDS for all of the substances they come into contact with. Even the most anti-lawsuit person on this board would have to admit that that is the job of the employer, not the employee.

RE: Who's fault?
By Andvary on 11/9/2007 6:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
No, that's precisely the purpose of MSDS. Every employer is required by law to keep an available database of MSDSs on every chemical in use. Every worker has the right to access this database. Actually, our safety guys prefer to think that every worker is "required by law" to read through all relevant MSDSs before working. Sick bastards. I've never seen anyone using these sheets though. I'm certainly not going to waste my time on reading this BS as it's mostly useless anyway. :)

So no, she could check that stuff, and it was made readily available to her. And I bet she was required to do so by local safety regulations. And she should have, her being a pregnant woman. It's not a reserch lab, she couldn't be exposed to too many chemicals. Actually, my personal opinion is that MSDSs exist exclusively to make sure employers don't have to answer to legal threats like this.

I should also say that her doctor is either irresponsible or an idiot. Or both. But I won't say that, because those two mentioned chemicals, as far as I know, are not known to cause that particular birth defect described in the article.
I do sympathize her, but hers is a lost cause as her problems have nothing to do with AMD.

RE: Who's fault?
By ira176 on 11/11/2007 1:02:41 AM , Rating: 2
I recall when I worked at RPS (now owned by FedEx)we had specific training about MSDS. Any package we received that had a particular hazardous or potentially dangerous substance had a label on the package. We were required to remove one of the three or four tags which listed the substance and place them in an envelope for the truck driver. We were also informed of the MSDS book about hazardous materials, and how to use it. If a package handling company goes to lengths to inform its employees of potential hazards, I'm sure AMD would do just the same.

RE: Who's fault?
By HighWing on 11/9/2007 5:26:20 PM , Rating: 1
While I do agree with you that perhaps a more in depth study of what caused the birth defects could be useful in placing true blame. I still have to argue with you that regardless of what really caused the birth defects it still does not change the fact that she was pregnant and working with chemicals that are known to cause birth defects. And for that reason her doctor AND supervisor should have known better to inform her of the risks. And blame should rightly fall on both if they failed to do so.

RE: Who's fault?


RE: Who's fault?


Thats why they pay you the big bucks to do it.

RE: Who's fault?




cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm"


RE: Who's fault?
By crystal clear on 11/10/2007 12:53:15 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is the best reposne/comment yet till now-

Its balanced/well researched/practical/responsible- deserves to get the GREEN rating 6

RE: Who's fault?
By crystal clear on 11/10/2007 12:57:11 AM , Rating: 2
I relate to this post-
RE: Who's fault?
By RW MD on 11/9/07, Rating: 5


Related Articles
Intel Quarterly Profit up 43 Percent
October 16, 2007, 9:39 PM
AMD's Large Debt Mounting Up Fast
April 29, 2007, 1:54 PM
