Articles Posted in Asbestos Exposure

First responders rushed to the aid of trapped and injured shoppers in downtown Philadelphia last month, after a botched demolition project, without a second thought to their own safety.

Now, however, our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that in those hours spent digging, climbing, pulling and lifting, brave men and women were exposed to asbestos fibers, lingering in the air after the collapse.

The confirmation that asbestos was found at the site raised three very important issues:

• The risk taken on by first responders every day;
• The fact that these men and women weren’t given protective respiratory gear before they were dispatched to this scene;
• The revelation that a licensed asbestos inspector had deemed the structure asbestos-free just days before the incident.

Let’s start with the general risk to first responders. We tend to think of asbestos exposure as being something that is primarily an issue for industrial workers – those in fields of construction, mechanics, shipping, electrical engineering, etc. And it’s true that all of those are high-risk occupations in terms of asbestos exposure. However, firefighters are often at risk just by virtue of the fact that their headquarters often contain asbestos. During downtime, firefighters often will do improvement projects here and there around the station, heightening their risk of exposure.

Additionally, given the pervasiveness of asbestos in many 20th century buildings and the fact that the substance is especially deadly when disturbed, consider who we send to these structures when they are on fire or collapsing. Even those who might not have been on a call to an asbestos-laden structure might be exposed to it from the unwashed gear hanging up from those who were on the scene.

And the issue of gear is our second point. We recognize that firefighters and all first responders are trained to get their quickly and rush into dangerous situations where everyone else is trying to get out. But there is no reason whatsoever that these brave men and women should not be appropriately equipped with gear that will protect them in the event they encounter asbestos that has been disturbed. Even in this case where there may have been bad information regarding the supposed lack of asbestos at the site, supervisors should treat every scene as if it has that potential – especially in older cities like Philadelphia and Boston, where it’s very likely to be the case.

Which brings us to the last point, which is the reported failure of this asbestos inspector to correctly identify whether the fibers were present in this structure. This inspector, certified by the city, two weeks prior to the collapse submitted an inspection report indicating that no asbestos was found at the site. Six people were killed when demolition crews improperly took down a wall of the structure. Subsequently, crews were brought in to remove the debris. Those crews have since confirmed that asbestos did in fact have to be removed from the site, proving it was present after all.

A councilman is now demanding a full-scale investigation, and was quoted by a local newspaper as saying that it appears as if “the asbestos report to the Health Department isn’t worth the paper it was written on.” He went on to say that the police, firefighters and others who dove into the debris to make those harrowing rescues deserve answers.

So far, the mayor’s office has refused to answer questions about how a city inspector could have been so wrong. No doubt, this is not an issue the people of Philadelphia will be willing to drop anytime soon.
Continue reading

A measure that would boost protections for consumers and workers in Boston and throughout the country is gaining momentum in Congress, following decades of inaction by the federal government.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys are encouraged by the progress of this action, which was slowed significantly back in 1991 when the Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to enact additional protections against asbestos exposure were curtailed by a federal appeals court ruling.

If the 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act can be strengthened, as advocates hope, we believe it may be possible for additional efforts to outlaw asbestos in the U.S. to be renewed. This could ultimately curb future instances of mesothelioma, which is caused by exposure to the fibers when they become airborne.

As it stands right now, the TSCA is essentially toothless, though it pledges regulation of potentially harmful chemicals in both consumer and industrial goods – everything from children’s pajamas to plastic bottles.

However, the act has been a disappointing failure. The New York Times reports that of the approximately 85,000 chemicals that are registered for approved use in the U.S., only about 200 have actually been tested by the EPA. Of those, less than a dozen have been restricted.

When the EPA lost its appeal to try to regulate asbestos, the agency also gave up any efforts to initiate further action on the TSCA.

Renewed efforts began in 2005. However, they have thus far been unsuccessful in enacting change because politicians have been effectively swayed by the American Chemistry Council, which represents deep-pocketed firms such as Procter & Gamble and Exxon Mobil.

But now, it appears a compromise may have been reached. If passed, certain aspects of chemical safety enforcement would be strengthened. For example, all chemicals would have to undergo safety and risk evaluations. Based on these, the EPA would be labeled somewhere on the spectrum of high or low priority. If the chemical was rated with a high risk potential, the EPA would then assume regulation control.

Still, some say it doesn’t go far enough. There aren’t enforceable deadlines, for example, and representatives of the Environmental Defense Fund complained that the EPA was lacking in authority to protect low-income communities or infants and children exposed to high amounts of toxic chemicals.

Asbestos is a highly toxic mineral that is heavily regulated, but it’s still legal for companies to buy, sell and use in the U.S. Most other industrialized nations have banned the substance, but the political lobby for asbestos products remains active. The EPA had attempted to ban the substance back in 1989, but it lost in federal court appeal two years later.

At the time of that ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals had criticized the EPA for failing to identify all substitute products that could replace asbestos and evaluating their toxicity as well, which would help in justifying the ban.

The EPA shot back that the court had made significant legal errors, but it has never again attempted to revive the issue of a ban.

We hope that with the anticipated strengthening of the TSCA, advocates could be empowered to seek such change.
Continue reading

A case of negligent asbestos exposure out of California was not only deeply deplorable, it illustrates why we will be seeing cases of mesothelioma in this country for years to come.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers were appalled when we learned the details of this case, which involves a company so sick with greed that not only would it place its own workers in danger, it would endanger the lives of children.

It started back in September of 2005 and stretched through the spring of 2006. The three defendants in question were former executives at a non-profit program that was created by those involved with an area high school to teach trade skills to at-risk youth. One of those non-profit leaders was a math teacher.

Each of the defendants held key positions with the organization, which was tapped to do a renovation project at a nearby automotive training center.

Part of that renovation, the executives learned, would involve the removal of some 1,000 linear feet of pipe insulation and more insulation in a separate tank. That insulation, the defendants were informed, contained asbestos.

This is not uncommon in structures erected prior to the mid-1970s, when asbestos was used in almost everything from insulation to tile to caulking to electrical paneling.

That’s why under state and federal law, anyone conducting renovation or demolition work in such a structure must have trained staffers and adequate protective gear to safely remove and properly dispose of the asbestos, which is a deadly cancer-causing material. The effects of such exposure usually won’t manifest until years, often decades, after it has already happened.

But in this case, the defendants – who knew asbestos was present – did not hire an outside firm to conduct this portion of the renovation. Instead, investigators say, they cut corners by using at least nine high school vocational students to do it.

These students were in direct contact with the asbestos, breathing in the fibers directly because none of them were given the proper respiratory equipment to protect them from inhaling the material. This was a project that went on for months. And the defendants allowed it to go on, unthinkably putting each and every one of these youth at risk for developing terminal cancer later in life.

As one state attorney was quoted as saying, the defendants did not deem these students worthy of protection because they were “at-risk.”

For these actions, the defendants pleaded either guilty or no contest to a number of state and federal felony criminal charges against them, including violation of environmental laws, illegal diversion of construction funds, failure to pay payroll taxes, worker’s compensation violations and the unreasonable risk of injury to those nine students.

They will serve a total of about 2 years in prison.

It’s true that asbestos is no longer widely used in new products that are manufactured today, and that production has tapered off significantly in the last several decades. However, negligent asbestos exposure cases like this show us why, sadly, we will continue to see mesothelioma litigation for many years to come.
Continue reading

Researchers with the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health have recently published a study indicating there is a strong association between taconite mine work and mesothelioma.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers know it has long been believed that asbestos exposure was the only known cause of mesothelioma.

But there may be more to the study than meets the eye. What researchers have discovered is a link – not a definitive cause-and-effect relationship.

Asbestos defense lawyers will undoubtedly use this information in an attempt to evade responsibility for current and future claims by positing that some other exposure could have caused an individual’s illness.

However, so far the only people believed to have contracted mesothelioma in connection with taconite exposure are men who worked in the taconite industry.

Taconite is a low-grade iron ore that is mainly comprised of chert. In its natural element, it is primarily found near Lake Superior.

A connection between taconite mining work and mesothelioma was first realized back in the late 1990s. As such, the Minnesota Legislator commissioned the $4.9 million study back in 2008, noting the state’s cancer registry revealed that there were a huge spike in mesothelioma cases among Minnesota Iron Range workers.

Back in 2003, the University of Minnesota conducted a study of taconite miners, and discovered that at least 14 to 17 cases of mesothelioma among those individuals were most likely caused by asbestos exposure. However, since that time, another 35 cases of mesothelioma have been diagnosed among taconite miners, and that was what prompted this study.

Researchers wanted to find out whether taconite was causing the mesothelioma, or simply exacerbating it. It’s worth noting that asbestos was frequently used in taconite mining and processing.

The results show that for every year a taconite laborer worked in the mine, his risk of mesothelioma inched up by 3 percent. But these workers might also have been exposed to a fair amount of asbestos in this work as well.

“Researchers can not say with assuredness that dust from taconite operations causes mesothelioma,” a local report indicated. Ongoing research will be necessary, they said, to determine what role asbestos played in the cases analyzed.

Still, there is a lot that suggests working in the taconite mines was not a healthy thing. Scientists looked at causes of death among taconite workers born after 1920. What they discovered was that rates of mesothelioma, heart disease and lung cancer were far higher for taconite workers than they were for the general population.

Researchers further pointed out that the taconite industry may be safer today than it was years ago. Occupational exposure to various forms of dust are considered to be within safe limits, and spouse-related contraction of dust-related lung ailments were no higher for taconite workers than they were for the population at large. That is a major difference from what we see in the asbestos industry, where spouses of workers exposed to asbestos have much higher rates of mesothelioma than the general population.
Continue reading

In a small Montana mining town, hundreds of people have been afflicted with exposure to asbestos, the vast majority dying after receiving a diagnosis of mesothelioma.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers know that authorities have for years been grappling with the best way to fully decontaminate the city. There had been a fair amount of criticism that it has taken this long just to initiate a study to figure out what all needs to be done.

Now, the Office of the Inspector General has released a report putting the blame on an unlikely suspect: the U.S. government. Namely, the Environmental Protection Agency, which is charged with ensuring clean water, air and soil to keep Americans healthy.

The area in question is a town called Libby, about 50 miles from the Canadian border. Four years ago, federal authorities declared a first-of-its-kind public health emergency in Libby – some 10 years after officials were first alerted to widespread concerns about the health effects of the asbestos dust that was being emitted from a vermiculite mine in town.

The vermiculite that was culled from that mine was subsequently used to insulate millions of homes across the country.

As of today, nearly $450 million has been spent on clean-up efforts there. Still, the town remains on high alert under the continued emergency declaration.

Meanwhile, asbestos-related deaths in Libby and throughout the country are expected to continue over the next several decades.

Clean-up efforts continue, albeit slowly. This year, there are an estimated 80 to 100 homes and properties that are slated for asbestos decontamination efforts. Several hundred more are still on the list – and that list is actually continuing to grow as investigators discover more and more locations that are severely contaminated.

The mine itself closed back in 1990, and officials haven’t even begun to tackle that site.

The Office of the Inspector General said that the EPA is responsible for delay after delay with these studies.

EPA officials fired back that such research is complex and time-consuming. It was important for researchers to do a thorough job and ensure the findings reflected an accurate portrait of what needed to happen to ensure resident safety.

So far, clean-up crews have already tackled some 1,700 commercial properties and homes, with some 1.2 million tons of contaminated soil removed from the site.

Just two years ago, the residents of Libby were infuriated to learn that the scrap wood chip piles at the edge of town, leftover from an old timber mill – the same ones they had used to fill yards, parks, and outside schools and even at a cemetery – contained asbestos – and the government had actually known about it for at least three years.

In fact, the EPA did nothing to stop the removal of the material from the site until the Associated Press started raising questions about it. The AP obtained a pile of EPA documents showing that the agency had found asbestos fibers in a fifth of the samples it had collected from the scrap would pile just a few years earlier.

It was later revealed that the trees had been cut down from a forest that was near the site of the mine, and that much of that timber was contaminated.
Continue reading

Across the globe, some 50 countries have banned asbestos, that toxic mineral that has been used for decades in everything from insulation to motor vehicle brakes to building materials.

The U.S., however, is not among them.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers know we aren’t the only ones who find this deeply troubling. As you probably are aware, asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, a fatal cancer of organ tissue linings (usually the lungs) that lies dormant for many years until advancing aggressively in the final stages.

While other countries have been shutting the door on asbestos in new products, the U.S. continues to import millions of pounds of this material. The U.S. Geological Survey reported in 2012 that the nation shipped in some 1,060 metric tons of asbestos – all from Brazil. The agency says that barring a ban, consumption of asbestos in the U.S. is likely to remain somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 tons.

What’s especially incensing about this asbestos use is that it’s not even necessary to the manufacture of the products for which it’s used. Safer alternatives for every use have been known for decades, according to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization.

And yet, some 30 Americans die DAILY from asbestos-related diseases, which are entirely preventable.

National Asbestos Awareness Week was earlier this month, and the president of the ADAO – who also lost her own husband to mesothelioma – held a press conference in Washington state to highlight how U.S. investment companies continue to have a large stake in the asbestos mines and production in Brazil, which is why imports have not tapered off completely. Not only are we running the risk of our own workers becoming infected, but the risk may be especially high in nations like Brazil, where regulatory authority may be far more lax than what we have in place here.

Annually, nearly 110,000 people across the globe die of diseases related to asbestos exposure, according to the World Health Organization.

An investigation conducted three years ago by the BBC and the Center for Public Integrity found that the global asbestos industry remains powerful, particularly throughout the developing world. With the aid of lobbyists and scientists, the industry continues to market the material quite aggressively in the developing world.

The world’s biggest producer of asbestos is Russia, followed by China and then Brazil.

In the U.S., peak production of asbestos was recorded in 1973, when we were processing more than 800,000 metric tons. Although we’ve seen a significant drop-off since then, there haven’t been any long-term, successful efforts at a ban. The federal Environmental Protection Agency tried back in the late 1980s, but the industry was able to ultimately successfully challenge that measure in court.

The industry that now consumes the most asbestos is a specialty chemical industry that manufactures sodium hydroxide and chlorine. This industry accounted for nearly 60 percent of all asbestos consumption in the U.S. last year. The other approximately 40 percent went to roofing materials, while the rest was listed as having “unknown applications.”
Continue reading

The very first National Asbestos Awareness Week is April 1 through April 7.

While it is the daily mission of our Boston mesothelioma lawyers to increase understanding about the dangers of this product and to fight for those who suffered irreversible harm by negligent manufacturers and employers, the U.S. Surgeon General took this newsworthy opportunity to weigh in.

Surgeon General Regina Benjamin issued a statement on April 1, underscoring that, “There is no level of asbestos exposure that is known to be completely safe.”

The first week of April had already been recognized as Global Asbestos Awareness Week. Senate Resolution 66 of the 113th Congress resulted in this being the first National Asbestos Awareness Week in the U.S.

The measure passed March 18, and urged the Surgeon General to warn and education people about the public health issue of asbestos exposure as a health hazard.

While the resolution detailed a laundry list of reasons why asbestos awareness is important, one of the driving forces appears to have been the devastation that was wrought in the small town of Libby, Montana, which is specifically mentioned in the resolution.

The tragic story of this town began in 1919, when a number of companies first started pulling vermiculite out of the mines in Libby. This supplied jobs to about 200 or so residents. But when those workers didn’t know at the time was that the mines were riddled with tremolite asbestos dust. This fact was known by the company that took over mining operations in 1963. It was also well-known by that time that asbestos caused deadly cancers, such as mesothelioma. And yet, no one was warned, even as leftover vermiculite was distributed for use in gardens, roads, backyards and even playgrounds.

Over the course of many decades, hundreds of residents in Libby, Mont. have died of mesothelioma and asbestos-related exposure disease.

Yet, the government did not intervene until 1999.

The fact that the government is now coming together to raise awareness about the perils of this substance is certainly a step in the right direction. However, we can’t be assured in a marked decline in asbestos-related disease until the government outlaws the use and import/export of the substance – which it has yet failed to do, as 55 other countries across the world have done.

Last year, the U.S. Geological Survey found that asbestos consumption in the U.S. was more than 1,060 tons, mostly used for “manufacturing needs.”

There is no need to use this material when even the U.S. Surgeon General firmly states that no amount of exposure to it is safe.

As part of the effort to further raise awareness, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization has released a “7 Facts for 7 Days” informational campaign. Among the points being made:

• Asbestos is a known cancer-causing agent. No amount of exposure to it is considered safe.
• Asbestos fibers are known to cause asbestosis, lung and gastrointestinal cancers and mesothelioma.
• Mesothelioma patients have an average life expectancy of six to 12 months.
• Roughly 110,000 workers die each year from asbestos exposure, according to the World Health Organization;
• Fibers of asbestos are sometimes 700 times smaller than a human hair. They are tasteless, odorless, and indestructible.

Continue reading

Cleanup has begun at a contaminated site in East Watertown, 20 minutes west of Boston, that was once the site of a U.S. Army installation.

Our Boston asbestos exposure lawyers understand that thousands of tons of dirt, brick, steel and other debris have already been trucked off the site as part of the first phase of this massive cleanup effort.

For those not familiar with the project, this was the GSA site which was part of the Watertwon Arsenal, where the U.S. Army once manufactured war-worthy guns and munitions. The 12-acre site, no longer used for this purpose, is riddled with contaminants, including more than 680 tons of material containing asbestos.

Although asbestos was generally not used in new construction after 1970, it remained present at existing Army sites for years. While U.S. Navy veterans have been the ones believed to have suffered the greatest level of asbestos exposure in recent years, we mustn’t overlook the exposure risk of other military personnel as well.

It was used all throughout structures where soldiers worked, ate and slept. It was in the cement foundation, the flooring, the roofing, the caulking, the plumbing. It was also in the vehicles they used and worked on, particularly in the clutch plates, gaskets and brake pads.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has listed a variety of duties performed by service members that might have increased their exposure to asbestos. Those include:

• Mining;
• Pipefitting;
• Milling;
• Shipyard Work;
• Demolition;
• Carpentry;
• Insulation Work;
• Construction;
• Manufacture/maintenance of certain military equipment.

While veterans – or those who worked closely with the U.S. military – may have a difficult time recovering damages from the Armed Forces due to immunity afforded to the federal government, soldiers and government contractors do have the option of filing suit against the manufacturers who manufactured the products and materials that made them sick.

Back in the early 1990s, the federal government gave the Army permission to begin asbestos abatement projects throughout its sites. In the course of that approval, the Army penned a 160-page checklist called the “Installation Asbestos Management Program Assessment.”

This clean-up is part of that ongoing effort, which should give you some indication as to how massive this problem was and continues to be.

The sheer volume of asbestos found at the Watertown site is a strong indicator that a great number of servicemen and servicewomen suffered at least some measure of exposure while the site was operational. They may just now be finding out that they were affected.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently overseeing the clean-up, which involves recycling most of the material – except the asbestos, which has been sent to an Ohio landfill.

Once the clean-up is finished, the land is to be transferred to the state’s Department of Conservation and Recreation, where officials hope to turn it into a park.

Before that can happen, however, officials need to conduct thorough testing of the ground and nearby wetlands, particularly for contamination caused by toxic polychlorinated biphenyls, also known as PCBs, which are a mixture of chemicals that were used as lubricants and coolants in certain machinery.
Continue reading

A number of low-income tenants in Yarmouth, about an hour south of Boston, near Hyannis, are protesting an asbestos abatement project they fear could pose undue risk to their health.

Our Boston asbestos exposure attorneys understand that a number of tenants are elderly and disabled and a number are children under the age of 12.

The safe removal of asbestos is a major issue in Massachusetts for several reasons, namely:

• There is so much of it;
• Proper removal is expensive.

Asbestos can be found in a long list of home products, including insulation, flooring, roofing, joint compounds, decorative plasters, wallboards, mastics, fireproofing and ceiling tiles.

The Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency generally holds that if these materials are in good condition, they should be left alone, as they will pose little to no risk. The danger is when the fibers in these materials are disturbed and become airborne. If people nearby aren’t equipped with proper respiratory protection, those fibers become snagged in delicate lung tissue and cause severe to terminal illnesses such as asbestosis and mesothelioma.

The sole case of these ailments is asbestos exposure. Despite what many asbestos defendants attempt to claim in court, there is no such thing as a safe amount of exposure to this fiber. Although asbestos ailments are deadly, they lie dormant for decades. When they do manifest, the progression tends to be rapid and decline is swift.

That’s why when asbestos renovation work is to be done in Massachusetts, it must be conducted according to 310 CMR 7.15. This statute requires that all owners, renovators, contractors and plumbers have to determine asbestos materials at a site prior to conducting any work.

If asbestos is located, it’s strongly recommended that only a certified Division of Occupational Safety worker perform that work, as there are a laundry list of operational and disposal requirements that must be met in order for the removal to be safely carried out.

In Yarmouth, residents say they received a short letter explaining that their flooring would need to be replaced and that they could “expect some debris.” No mention was made in that letter that the vinyl flooring to be replaced actually contained asbestos. Some residents, however, were aware of this fact and are fighting back to raise awareness within the complex and also to encourage the owners to reconsider the renovations, considering the floors, while stylistically outdated, are not in bad condition.

The Boston-based management company said the work area within the one-bedroom units would be blocked off with plastic and tenants would be given the option to remove their food while work was underway.

Tenants were offered to stay in the community day room while asbestos abatement was occurring, but no overnight accommodations were offered.

Some residents were advised by the EPA to bag their belongings prior to the abatement.

But it appears the work will go on, at least in 42 units of the 150-unit complex.
Continue reading

With our technology and medical knowledge expanding exponentially, it’s inevitable that the justice system would be relying more heavily on such information as evidence.

But when medical, scientific and legal opinions intersect, it can make for a contentious battle. Nowhere is that more evident than in mesothelioma cases.

In 2011, a Pennsylvania judge awarded the estate of a deceased mesothelioma plaintiff a $950,000 sum from an electric company for its negligent exposure of the vicitm to asbestos fibers through its welding rods.

The electric company, however, appealed that decision. Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers have since learned that the appellate court affirmed the earlier ruling, refusing the company’s challenge to the “any exposure” theory, despite an earlier ruling by that state’s supreme court, which found that the theory is not sufficient to establish causation.

The case, Wolfinger v. Lincoln Electric Company, provides some hope that judges and justices will continue to hand down common sense decisions, even in states where patients’ rights have been actively restricted.

If you aren’t familiar, the “any exposure” theory basically holds that each and every exposure to every kind of asbestos in a workplace setting may constitute causation for the disease.

Many courts reject this, and plaintiffs are often required to show evidence of repeated exposure – despite the fact that doctors and researchers agree no type or amount of asbestos exposure is safe.

In 2005 in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs in Betz v. Pneuma Abex attempted to assert that any exposure to asbestos, even casual, was basis enough to assert causation of mesothelioma or asbestos-related illnesses. This was the argument used, even though the plaintiff in that case had in fact suffered repeated exposure to the fibers in brake linings through his decades of work as an auto mechanic. The court, however, rejected that “any exposure” theory, and that precedent has been upheld in that state ever since.

Then came the Wolfinger case. Lincoln Electric appealed the initial verdict on several grounds, including that:

1. The court had erroneously allowed expert testimony indicating that “any exposure” to the defendant’s asbestos-laden products was causation, in violation of Betz;
2. The trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff’s doctor to testify as to the root cause of his illness.

The court, however, rejected those arguments on the basis that despite the doctor’s testimony – specifically with regard to the “any exposure” theory, it was not the only evidence offered by the plaintiff as to causation.

In other words, the plaintiff’s attorneys didn’t leave it up to this one witness to find a casual link. As such, the earlier verdict was upheld.

Once again, it is critical for the plaintiff attorney to thoroughly research every aspect of a claim before moving forward. Choosing an attorney who is committed to that level of dedication will be critical to the success of your case.
Continue reading