Defense attorneys defending companies hit with a multi-district class action over asbestos exposure injuries have asked a federal court to throw out diagnoses and any testimony from several doctors whose work has been severely questioned elsewhere.

In a motion filed with U.S. District Court in Philadelphia attorneys from the firm of Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy of Jackson, Miss., argued the six doctors involved effectively have nullified their diagnoses either by refusing to answer questions, or by having signed affidavits stating that their examinations had not discovered asbestosis.

According to the defense filing, Drs. Ray and Andrew Harron, as well as Dr. James Ballard, are asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when questioned about their work in the 'asbestos litigation industry.'

Doctors Richard Levine, George Martindale and Jeffery Bass have executed affidavits repudiating any alleged “diagnosis of an asbestos-related disease rendered by them,” the motion stated.

Attorney Walter G. Watkins said in the motion papers, “Thus, it is without question that all testimony, including that in the form of an alleged 'diagnosis,' by these doctors must be excluded and that lawsuits based on their opinions should be dismissed by this court.”

The attorneys, who represent 47 defendant companies, noted several studies indicating that misdiagnoses of asbestosis and other diseases in mass screenings are widespread, with the most “optimistic” finding 66 percent of such diagnoses being unsubstantiated.

Additionally, the motion referenced a ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack of Corpus Christi, Texas, in which she said that many diagnoses in mass screenings are as much the work of lawyers as they are of doctors.

Judge Jack's ruling came in a case that involved all of the physicians who are the target of Mr. Watkins' motion.

“The increasingly obvious result of such incestuous relationships between lawyers, screening doctors and screening companies is that individuals with minimal or non-existent exposure to asbestos, who do not exhibit any signs of a related pneumoconiosis, will be 'diagnosed positive' by the chosen screening doctor simply because it will result in a higher payment to all involved,” wrote Mr. Watkins.

“The diagnoses authored by the litigation doctors subject to this motion, their methodology, and their relationships with screening companies and various law firms fit squarely into this fraudulent scheme,” the motion said.

Although the motion seeks to have the diagnoses thrown out, it allows for plaintiffs to re-file their case if they can provide a diagnosis from a doctor other than the six named in the motion.