The record
In upholding the punitive-damages verdict, the Missouri Court of Appeals recounted plaintiffs’ trial evidence that defendants asked the Dutch Consumer Organization not to publish before defendants agreed with its findings and that defendants later pressured Mount Sinai regarding findings the defendants considered hostile.
Claim scope
The appellate court’s account of plaintiffs’ trial evidence while reviewing the sufficiency of evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
What this source does not establish
An independent judicial finding that the recounted documents or events were true, a formal Mount Sinai retraction, product content, scientific causation, or liability beyond the case’s procedural posture.
Limitations
The opinion’s “reluctantly” language reports what defendants noted. A separately verified 1976 Mount Sinai statement qualifies media reports; it does not independently establish a formal retraction. Preserve both limitations whenever this record is displayed.
Source
Published Appellate Opinion Court Recounting — Ingham, No. ED107476, opinion’s recitation of “Plaintiffs’ evidence” regarding the Dutch Consumer Organization (1973) and Mount Sinai (1975–1976); passage beginning “after Defendants learned the Dutch Consumer Organization reported asbestos”