Articles Posted in Boston Mesothelioma

Asbestos removal or “abatement” as the process is called in the industry is an expensive ordeal, which must be performed by trained professionals who are certified to remove the hazardous material. Workers must be provided with proper protective equipment including respirators or ventilators, and care must be taken to prevent asbestos dust from escaping into the environment where it can harm others in the community.

The reason for all these precautions is asbestos fibers can be deadly if inhaled. They become lodged in the lungs or an outer layer organ tissue known as the mesothelium where they metastasize into mesothelioma, lung cancer or other respiratory illness.

According to a recent article from Mass Live, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is suing an Oxford-based company for improper handling of asbestos in a Sturbridge home.
Continue reading

Our mesothelioma plaintiff lawyers understand how dangerous it is to work in an environment where asbestos is present.

According to a recent news article from The Plainsman, the renovation of an Auburn university class building will require asbestos abatement. Solvents used in the installation of the floor tiles, as well as fireproofing materials, have been found to contain asbestos and must be removed during the construction process.

The process to remove asbestos required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require the title and the asbestos containing mastic to be dissolved with solvents. It would be much faster and cheaper to sand or grind the material, but that would greatly increase the amount of asbestos fibers that are released into the air.

In order to keep workers safe from the vapors emitted from the solvents, an exhaust system must be used that contains HEPA filters designed to trap asbestos fibers, so they are not released outside of the building. School officials are announcing that, just because there may be an odor from the solvents noticeable outside of the classroom, this does not mean there is any danger of asbestos exposure.
Continue reading

One of the most common tactics employed by asbestos defendants is to drag on proceedings as long as possible. The hope is plaintiffs will be so overwhelmed, they will simply give up.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys know the fight sometimes extends even beyond trial phase, as many losing asbestos defendants appeal, hoping to slash the verdict or toss it altogether. Experienced legal representation by attorneys who are dedicated to fighting aggressively for the plaintiff at every phase is critical.

This was recently underscored yet again in the case of
Vanderbilt v. Galliher, where the Delaware Supreme Court ruled a lower court made a mistake in failing to grant a new trial to asbestos defendants on the grounds key witnesses had made derogatory statements in front of the jury.
Continue reading

In Boston mesothelioma lawsuits, a key point that must be made – even before a case can make it to the trial phase – is sufficient proof the condition was caused by the defendant, either through action (producing a dangerous product) or inaction (failure to warn).

Some defendants have worked the time lapse present in most of these cases, as well as the large number of defendants, to their advantage. Symptoms of mesothelioma, a terminal form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, do not appear until decades after exposure. By then, memories fade, records are discarded and it can be difficult to pinpoint exact times and dates. Beyond that, asbestos was used in a wide range of products throughout the 20th Century. For a plaintiff, the challenge is to show there was a significant degree of exposure to the defendant’s product and that it was that exposure which substantially contributed to illness.

In the recent case of Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corp., a trial court had granted summary judgment to the defense, which argued causation – connecting the plaintiff’s illness to exposure to the defense product – was lacking. However, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reversed.
Continue reading

A federal appellate court has affirmed an earlier decision removing a number of mesothelioma lawsuits to federal court, wherein the defendant manufacturer of dangerous products can assert a colorable federal defense for its actions.

In Leite v. Crane Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit indicated the defense had met the burden of proof necessary to show it had a solid case for asserting it was acting under the purview of the federal government at the time the plaintiff injuries were incurred. The appeal was a consolidated effort on behalf of several similarly situated plaintiffs who are and were U.S. Navy veterans.

New England mesothelioma attorneys recognize rulings like this can be a significant blow, though it doesn’t necessarily mean an end. The plaintiff will still have the opportunity to strike down this theory at trial.
Continue reading

A lawsuit brought on behalf of six individuals who died from asbestos-related disease alleges defendants Cahill Gordon & Reindell LLP and BASF Catalysts LLC fraudulently destroyed evidence relating to asbestos-containing talc products.

The complaint alleges the companies’ actions have ruined potentially thousands of asbestos product liability lawsuits against them.

Boston asbestos lawsuit lawyers have learned that in all six cases, there is evidence that the plaintiffs were sickened by exposure to talc manufactured and sold by Englehard Corporation, a predecessor of BASF.
Continue reading

The so-called “bare metal defense” is gaining traction in mass tort asbestos actions throughout the country.

Mesothelioma litigation defendants are finding that in some cases, they can successfully argue they should not be held responsible for damages caused by asbestos-containing elements of their product, because they did not manufacture or distribute those specific elements. They assert no duty to warn with respect to a third-party’s asbestos-containing insulation or replacement components.
Our
New England mesothelioma lawyers recognize the problem with this argument is that the asbestos-containing elements of those products were considered essential. To assert that the defendants didn’t know those parts of their product contained asbestos or that the asbestos wasn’t dangerous is a serious stretch, and one that allows culpable manufacturers to escape responsibility for the irreparable harm caused to so many people.

Unfortunately, some courts have been buying it. In Massachusetts, a Superior Court judge overseeing the case of Whiting v. Alfa Laval Inc. granted a summary judgment to two defendants in a case where a plaintiff widow alleged her husband had died due to exposure to asbestos-contaminated products while in the Navy. The defendant, in that case a manufacturer of valves and turbines used on Navy ships, asserted it had no duty to warn of the potential dangers arising from equipment that it neither manufactured nor supplied. Defendants cited favorable rulings by both the California and Washington Supreme courts.
Continue reading