Boston mesothelioma patients who suffered asbestos exposure from insulation products made by Quigley Co. Inc. can sue drug maker Pfizer, which had purchased the company back in 1968.
Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys understand this is a case that has been dragging on for more than three decades, and it’s encouraging that a federal court has taken a stand on the side of consumer and patients’ rights.
The case is called Court rules Pfizer can face some asbestos suits, By Ben Berkowitz, Reuters
Not only were a property owner and contractor reportedly complicit in a Boston asbestos exposure case that may have imperiled young children, one of them is now also accused of witness intimidation.
Our Boston asbestos exposure attorneys are appalled at the news coming out of Dedham from the state attorney general’s office.
The fact is, asbestos is the cause of mesothelioma, a dangerous cancer that can take years to detect. Once it’s diagnosed, it’s a death sentence and patients are given about a year to live. The diagnosis is devastating to families, who are often blindsided and had no idea, as the exposure may have happened years earlier.
According to a recent press release, the property owner, 58, is from Weston and the heating and cooling contractor, 41, is from Plainville. Each of the two were arraigned on criminal charges – four altogether – for violating the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the two are accused of failing to notify the state’s department of environmental protection about the presence and removal of the asbestos at a residence where a family with small children lived. They also didn’t hire a company specializing in safe asbestos removal.
The state’s Department of Labor Standards is very strict on its requirement that whenever an individual or company is removing asbestos, the work has to be completed by a licensed contractor, trained in asbestos removal. That removal has to follow very specific standards in terms of how the materials are handled, how they must be stored and how they should be disposed of. Throughout this whole process, the department of environmental protection needs to be informed – and its the contractor’s responsibility to do that.
Court records indicate that in December of 2010, the property owner hired the heating and cooling contractor – who was not licensed to perform asbestos removal – to replace a boiler in the basement of the residence. It’s alleged that the contractor did not seal off the basement when he did this work, which would have helped to ensure that exposure to that family and their small children would have at least been limited.
It’s not clear exactly how environmental authorities learned of this alleged violation, but once they did, they immediately conducted an investigation, with the assistance of the Massachusetts Environmental Strike Force – a multi-agency coalition that works together to investigate and prosecute individuals who have committed crimes that potentially threaten the land, air or water or could otherwise pose a significant health risk.
When the contractor learned he was being investigated for potential criminal violations, authorities say he went to the home where he did the work and threatened the tenants – the ones with the small children who had been exposed to asbestos – saying he would inflict some harm if they testified against him.
As of right now, both defendants have pleaded not guilty in the case, and have been released on their own recognizance, although the contractor was ordered to have no contact whatsoever with the tenant/witness.
A pretrial conference for the pair is expected to be held the first of May.
Continue reading
For their role in a Boston asbestos exposure case, four companies could be required to pony up an estimated $80,000 in penalties. 
As our Boston asbestos exposure attorneys understand it, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has announced that the companies were each involved in work being conducted at the Lowell Sun Newspaper near Kearney Square. They are accused of failing to properly remove and dispose of asbestos on the property.
Coakley released a statement saying her office would aggressively go after those who violate the laws regarding asbestos removal, as such regulations are laid out by numerous entities, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, as spelled out in Court Orders Up to $80,000 in Civil Penalties for Four Companies after Improper Asbestos Removal, Press Release, The Office of Massachusetts Attorney General
Those suffering from mesothelioma in Boston should be encouraged by news that has just come out of London, where thousands of families will now be able to file insurance claims for their conditions. 
Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys have been closely following the news from across the pond, where the nation’s supreme court ruled that the insurance liability was induced at the time that the individual was exposed – not when the disease was first discovered.
This is crucial in mesothelioma cases because, as we’ve discussed on our Boston Mesothelioma Lawyer’s Blog, this is a cancer that often doesn’t reveal itself for years – usually decades – after the initial exposure. By that time, it is often too late for individuals to seek any kind of effective treatment. In fact, patients usually have less than a year to live.
In our daily lives we can be oblivious to the potential harms around us. If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma you might wonder how you were exposed to asbestos and not have know the potential harms.
Having a Boston mesothelioma attorney is critical to getting the award you deserve. Our attorneys have the experience and tenacity to identify the proper arguments and parties in your Boston mesothelioma case.
Simpkins v. CSX is a case where the plaintiff’s husband was exposed to asbestos daily while working for the defendant. Upon returning home from work each night, there was asbestos residue on his clothing. This caused his wife to inhale this asbestos and subsequently suffer from mesothelioma. Plaintiff sued her husband’s former employer claiming negligence, wanton and willful conduct and strict liability.
In a case for negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence all of the elements of negligence. Plaintiff has to prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and the plaintiff suffered damages. Simpkins argues that as to her negligence claim, the defendants failed to take the proper precautions to protect plaintiff’s husband and their family from the potential “take-home asbestos exposure.”
Strict liability is an imposition of liability where the defendant is engaged in ultrahazardous activity. Plaintiff argued that the defendants should be held liable because they were engaged in activities with products containing asbestos.
On the other hand, CSX claimed that no liability can be imposed on them because they did not owe any duty to a third party non-employee who was exposed to asbestos, like the plaintiff. Furthermore, plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant and had never been on the work premises. Because of this lack of a direct relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, defendant argues they had no duty to plaintiff.
This conflict over whether there was a duty involved in this case led the court to analyze the entire concept of duty. In order to do this, the court looked to public policy in their consideration of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The court cites prior case law where this relationship is further analyzed and divided into four separate components. These components are: the reasonable foreseeability of the plaintiff’s injury, the likelihood of the injury, the amount effort needed to protect from injury, and the consequences of placing this burden of prevention on the defendant.
What is crucial in this case is the general rule that states that there is no duty to rescue a stranger. However, where there is a special relationship a duty to take these affirmative actions can be created. But the court here explains that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant does not constitute as one of these four special relationships.
Plaintiff in this case proved that her husband worked for defendants and that plaintiff’s husband was exposed to asbestos. Plaintiff also showed that it was reasonable to find that her husband carried this asbestos home on his clothing. However, she failed to prove that the defendant knew or should have known that there was an unreasonably high risk of harm to the plaintiff. To prove this, plaintiff would have had to show specific facts that would prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of this risk of harm to plaintiff.
Illinois Supreme Court in this case found that in this cause of action for negligence the main issue was whether the defendants could have reasonably foreseen that their actions could cause the plaintiff’s injuries. Basically, the defendant’s owe a duty of care to foreseeable victims.
In analysis, the plaintiff did prove that the defendant’s acts or omissions contributed to the risk of harm to the plaintiff. However the second part of the duty analysis rests on the four components of the relationship discussed above. Because plaintiff did not prove that her injuries were foreseeable this court found her pleadings insufficient and they remanded it to the lower court for further proceedings.
There are so many components to every theory in every area of law. Having an experienced attorney guiding you can give you the peace of mind you need to concentrate on your health.
Continue reading
If you were diagnosed with mesothelioma in Boston as a result of asbestos in the workplace you may be thinking that suing a large company will be no easy feat. Do not get discouraged. Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys have the knowledge and experience to take on the big companies to get you the award you deserve.
Cancer runs rampant in our country but mesothelioma is very unique. Mesothelioma is cancer, usually in the respiratory system that results from exposure to asbestos. Asbestos is a dangerous substance that has been linked to usage in the manufacturing and building industries.
Daley v. A.W. Chesterton is a case that arose because a laborer who was working in the manufacturing sector became ill because of his exposure to asbestos. He was diagnosed with two malignant diseases over a span of 16 years, and he sought compensatory and punitive damages from several parties who were responsible for this exposure.
Compensatory damages are the quantifiable damages that are measured monetarily to replace strictly the financial loss to the plaintiff. In instances where there is injury or disease that resulted because of the defendant’s negligence, compensatory damages would be awarded to compensate the plaintiff for the medical bills incurred for treatments resulting from that defendant’s negligence. Punitive damages have the intention of punishing the defendant and deterring the negligent behavior, and are awarded for things like pain and suffering.
In Daley, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was charged with the question of whether a plaintiff could bring more than one separate lawsuit where the plaintiff was diagnosed with more than one malignant disease that was the result of the same asbestos exposure.
Pennsylvania has a state statute called the two disease rule. This rule allows individuals to bring separate lawsuits where the plaintiff can prove that he or she was diagnosed with more than one malignant disease that was the result of defendant’s negligence.
The plaintiff in this case was first diagnosed with pulmonary asbestosis and squamous-cell carcinoma in his right lung. These diseases can be directly attributed to exposure to asbestos. He sued several parties and obtained a settlement in the mid 1990s.
More than 10 years later, the plaintiff was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. This cancer can be directly linked to the same asbestos exposure that gave the plaintiff the original diagnosis. Plaintiff then sued several different parties for negligence and cited this two-disease rule.
The defendants in this case argued that the doctrine of res judicata precluded this action. Res judicata is a doctrine surrounding claim preclusion in that a suit cannot be brought if the main issue in the second suit is exactly the same as the first and there are the same parties to the action. Basically, they argued that the plaintiff lost his right to sue these parties in the second litigation when he sued the original parties to the lawsuit because the diseases arose out of the same asbestos exposure.
The court cited that this was incorrect reasoning because none of the defendant named in the second litigation are the same as the defendants named in the first case that was settled in the late 1990s. Additionally, the court discussed this two-disease rule, which is a limited exception to the original cause of action requirements created by the state legislature to provide relief for asbestos-related diseases.
In application, the plaintiff was allowed to sue the different defendants in the second case for a different malignant asbestos related disease arising from the same asbestos exposure that led to a prior settlement for damages associated with a different malignant disease. The plaintiff was allowed to do this because at the time he brought the original claim, he had no knowledge of the existence of the second asbestos-related malignant disease.
Consequently, this court decided that the separated disease rule of Pennsylvania allowed this plaintiff to file a second cause of action for the new malignant asbestos-related disease.
Having an experienced legal team can be very beneficial in navigating your way to the award you deserve.
Continue reading
A company that for half a century provided asbestos-laden parts to the U.S. Navy recently set up a $75 million asbestos trust for veterans who may have been exposed and suffered illnesses because of it.
Many U.S. veterans were exposed to asbestos while serving aboard Navy ships when the government regularly used this natural mineral as an insulation and a protector from fire. It was used in piping, valves and other parts to resist heat and fire. The flaky mineral can easily be ingested and lead to tumors that grow on the lining of major organs on patients with mesothelioma in New England.
Our Massachusetts mesothelioma lawyers have met many veterans who served faithfully in order to protect our country’s freedom. Yet during that service time, they were exposed to asbestos. In many cases, the companies that supplied the products laden with asbestos knew of their effects or at least had been warned that people were getting sick.
Yet unsuspecting veterans were working on these U.S. Navy ships and in shipyards where asbestos was commonly found. Decades later, far after retirement, these men and women are now getting sick and being diagnosed with major illnesses, including mesothelioma, which is deadly and has no cure.
A person can be exposed to asbestos at a young age and live with the cancer for years without it showing any outward symptoms or signs. By the time a person feels those symptoms — commonly reflected as heavy coughing, chest pain, fluid build-up and others — it’s typically too late. The cancer is in its advanced stages and there are few treatment options that can help.
According to several sources, Leslie Controls Inc., as part of a bankruptcy reorganization plan, has dedicated $75 million to victims of asbestos exposure. The company provided valves and gaskets that were covered in asbestos for the Navy between the 1940s and 1980s. The company has been named in a growing number of asbestos-related and mesothelioma lawsuits. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2010.
The legal strategy of the company is to be able to handle all current and future litigation that may crop up because of the company’s use of the dangerous mineral. The fibers, research has shown, are the primary cause for mesothelioma and other respiratory ailments.
The U.S. Navy is protected from direct lawsuits under sovereign immunity and Feres Doctrine laws. However, individuals may file lawsuits against manufacturers that contracted with the government on a regular basis. Leslie has previously contended that its products didn’t contribute to asbestos exposure for veterans.
All lawsuits were halted in 2010 because of the bankruptcy filing. Once the reorganization plan is approved by the court, the lawsuits are expected to continue. The company continues to manufacture and supply valves and subsystems in the energy, industrial and aerospace markets.
Continue reading
A company that manufactures cans in Minnesota is attempting to use lobbying efforts to try to shield itself from asbestos lawsuits after workers have complained of getting sick, the Star Tribune is reporting.
This can be a lesson to Massachusetts lawmakers who must deal with the problems here associated with constituents who are exposed to asbestos in New England. While there are no longer active vermiculite mines that may contain asbestos, that doesn’t mean people here couldn’t be exposed – or haven’t been already.
Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that mesothelioma doesn’t get the same time of attention that other forms of cancer may get. It is fatal, though, and there is no known cure.
Companies that have old factories or old manufacturing plants often are faced with the problem of having asbestos it the walls or in piping. This can cause employees to be exposed to asbestos, which in turn causes long-term health problems.
In Minnesota, a company that has three manufacturing plants is hoping to change state law that could limit the number of asbestos claims stemming from a merger in the 1960s. The company says current laws have caused it to have to pay $700 million in claims and lawyer fees on top of $1 billion in borrowing costs associated with the litigation.
Lawyers say the proposal, which is up for a vote in the state senate, is the company’s way of trying to skirt the rules and get the law changed so they can protect themselves from lawsuits. Experts say that if the law is changed to help this company, it could affect all companies and set a bad precedent for future lawsuits.
The company currently has about 150 asbestos cases statewide, with most being filed in the last 15 years. In the last year, only a few have been filed, lawmakers say. Company officials say they hope the law change will help their image with Wall Street.
Analysts believe that current litigation could take decades to be completed and it could go on into the future because health problems with asbestos exposure can take decades to detect. Future victims who don’t know they’re sick could end up being affected if this measure is passed.
This is a good lesson for Massachusetts lawmakers because it’s possible that Massachusetts residents could attempt to bring similar litigation here. Big companies with many employees, including past employees who may have been harmed by asbestos exposure, may file future lawsuits.
The tricky thing with mesothelioma is that workers may not find out about the cancer until years in the future, even though they were employees decades ago. Therefore, if politicians attempt to help these companies — which may have put these workers at risk by letting there be asbestos in their buildings — by changing the laws, it could mean major problems in the future.
If employees aren’t able to get the help they need to pay for major medical bills, they may have nowhere to turn. It’s important that the laws are in place to help employees who may have been harmed or killed because of company negligence.
Continue reading
East Providence officials recently agreed to a plan to spend $9 million clearing out asbestos from schools in that city, showing that asbestos in New England is still an issue.
Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers recognize that asbestos isn’t something many citizens are constantly thinking of today. Some people think of it as a problem of the past — one that only affects older generations.
And while older citizens often are the ones suffering from asbestos-related illnesses, such as mesothelioma, the fact that school districts are still today trying to clean asbestos out of their facilities shows that it still may be a problem. And if our children are exposed to asbestos, it will only create a new generation of sufferers.
On the one hand, it’s encouraging that school districts are earmarking funds that will be designed to eliminate dangerous asbestos from schools throughout our communities. On the other, however, it’s disheartening that in 2012 asbestos is still in many of our schools, possibly affecting our children.
Research has shown that even a small amount of asbestos exposure can cause major issues years later. With mesothelioma, victims could have been exposed as many as 30 or 40 years ago, and have no symptoms. Once they are checked out and diagnosed, the incurable cancer is in its advanced stages. The median survival rate after diagnosis is only 12 months. That’s what makes this cancer so frustrating — it takes so long to develop and then kills swiftly.
While asbestos was a natural mineral used for insulation for decades — from about 1910 to 1990 — researchers began finding that exposure caused sickness around the 1970s. So, it’s now been more than 40 years that people have known asbestos is dangerous, and yet it is still in our schools today.
Renovating or properly removing asbestos can be dangerous. But letting it sit and possibly become disturbed may be more dangerous – even deadly. No parent wants to send their child to a school where they could be harmed simply for walking in the front door.
At least Rhode Island officials are taking the situation seriously. According to the East Providence Patch, the Rhode Island Building Energy code secured $9 million to renovate several schools. The plans were held up as officials tried to get the funding to do the projects.
Officials hope that their efforts will be done by the summer so that the schools will be free from the harmful materials by the new school year. Health department officials said they were happy with the news. They had mandated air testing at the schools. Contractors said they will work closely with health officials to ensure that the renovation is done properly and licensed asbestos removal experts are hired to do the job. This is a highly regulated field, which shows the importance of doing it right the first time.
Continue reading
Recent news out of Upstate New York shows that developers there are unable to follow the law regarding asbestos removal, just like construction workers from Massachusetts.
Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers have reported before on our Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog about situations where real estate developers try to skirt the law and end up getting arrested.
Two Plainville men — one a contractor and one a home owner — were recently charged with improperly removing asbestos from an old house in Medway. Rather than hire trained asbestos removal experts to do the job, they tried to do it themselves. Not only did they probably expose themselves to asbestos, but they could have put others in danger. Asbestos exposure in Massachusetts is the leading cause of mesothelioma.
Asbestos is flaky and can easily travel through the air. This is where it’s most dangerous because people can ingest it through their mouths or noses without even knowing. And even a small amount of exposure can do damage.
Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that is caused by exposure to asbestos. The asbestos can travel through a person’s system and attach to major organs, making operation difficult or impossible. Chemotherapy is an option, but not a cure. Researchers are working on figuring out a better way to treat the cancer.
In this case, according to NBC News, a 28-year-old developer now faces up to 10 years in prison plus a $250,000 fine after being charged with violating the Clean Air Act. He faces two counts of the crime.
Prosecutors say the man was working on a downtown Livingston County warehouse he owed. He hired workers to haul large quantities of asbestos without getting approval or hiring a trained expert in the field.
A state inspector visited the work site one day in December and saw large materials near a dumpster that looked like asbestos. After testing, it was confirmed to be the dangerous mineral. Nearly 100 bags of dry, friable asbestos were found and tested. Employees were working nearby the asbestos, which was sitting out in the open.
Prosecutors say that any person who may have been near the site between August 1 and December 14, 2011 could have been put at risk of asbestos exposure. Any gust of wind would have taken that flaky asbestos and sent it all around the area. People could have easily been exposed without knowing it. It would be prudent for people who live in the area to be seen by a doctor.
Sadly, if not for a complaint that led to an inspection, the problem may never have been exposed. People would have ended up with mesothelioma years in the future not knowing why. This happens, as developers try to save money by improperly removing asbestos. It is not used in this country for a reason — it’s dangerous.
Continue reading
Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog