Asbestos disease expert wins right to obtain information held on him by lobbyist

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos disease expert wins right to obtain information held on him by lobbyist, by C. Dyer (BMJ, 2019).

The study

• Author: C. Dyer
• Journal: BMJ
• Published: 2019;365:l1783
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is a short news report in The BMJ, not a research study, and it contains no medical or scientific data on asbestos. It described a 2019 High Court case brought under the Data Protection Act. Robin Rudd, a consultant physician specialising in respiratory diseases and cancer, had spent 35 years giving expert evidence in claims for mesothelioma, lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural disease allegedly caused by asbestos exposure. John Bridle had been involved for 50 years in the manufacture and use of chrysotile (white) asbestos and asbestos cement products. Bridle complained to the General Medical Council that Rudd had falsified the health risks of chrysotile in expert reports. The report stated that the GMC dismissed the complaint, deciding it had not reached the threshold for investigation. Rudd asked Bridle for any personal data held about him. According to the report, Mr Justice Warby ruled that Bridle was the data controller. The judge ordered Bridle to provide descriptions of the recipients of the data, the identities of people whose names had been redacted, and any information as to the sources of the data. Bridle was ordered to pay costs, including £50 000 on account by July.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: news report on a court judgment (not a research study)
• Who was studied: No study population. The report concerned two parties to a High Court case in 2019. One was Robin Rudd, a consultant physician who gives expert evidence in asbestos disease cases. The other was John Bridle, 79, who had been involved in the chrysotile asbestos industry, together with his company J and S Bridle.
• Exposure: No exposure was studied. The report mentions chrysotile (white) asbestos and asbestos cement products used in building as the industry Bridle was involved in.
• Main results:
  • The General Medical Council dismissed Bridle's complaint against Rudd, deciding it had not reached the threshold for investigation.
  • In response to Rudd's request, Bridle's company eventually released hundreds of comments about Rudd, many of them in emails with names redacted.
  • After a two and a half day hearing, Mr Justice Warby ruled that Bridle was the data controller. The judge ordered Bridle to provide three things: descriptions of the recipients of the personal data, the identities of those whose names were redacted, and any information as to the sources of the personal data.
  • Bridle was ordered to pay costs, expected to be a six figure sum, with £50 000 to be paid on account by July.

Related studies

• Doctor with mesothelioma wins settlement for asbestos exposure in late 1990s — C. Dyer (2020)
• Analysis of Mortality from Asbestos-Related Diseases in Brazil Using Multiple Health Information Systems, 1996-2017 — E. Algranti, V.S. Santana, et al. (2022)
• Hospital records: an underutilized source of information regarding occupational diseases and exposures — G.M. Liss, R.A. Kusiak, et al. (1997)
• Radical surgery for mesothelioma: how can we obtain evidence? — T. Treasure, S. Swift, et al. (2003)
• Assessment of the toxicity of man-made fibres. A final report of a workshop held in Paris, France 3-4 February 1994 — J. Bignon, P. Brochard, et al. (1995)
• Low dose exposure to natural and man made fibres and the risk of cancer: towards a collaborative European epidemiology. Report of a workshop held in Paris , 10-12 June, 1991 — A.J. Valleron, J. Bignon, et al. (1992)

Browse more research in BMJ, or return to medical research.