The record
The Ingham court rejected the argument that the defendants' adherence to the J4-1 asbestos testing method was a complete defense, treating the availability of a more sensitive pre-concentration method as evidence the jury could weigh.
Claim scope
That the choice of analytical method is squarely part of the litigated record, and that a published appellate opinion describes J4-1 as capable of returning negative results where a pre-concentration method would not. This is the litigation-side counterpart to the FDA test-method rulemaking.
What this source does not establish
It does not adjudicate which method is scientifically correct. The court noted the defense argument that 'no public-health agency has ever' required the concentration method, and declined to reweigh evidence, citing its standard of review.
Limitations
Recitation and standard-of-review analysis, not a scientific holding.
Source
Case Citation — Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, 608 S.W.3d 663 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)