Articles Posted in Boston Mesothelioma

A petition filed by a Baltimore attorney could breathe life into approximately 13,000 long-dormant asbestos cases, and potentially affect the way mesothelioma cases across the country are handled.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers are closely following the developments of this case, which targets how the capitol city of Baltimore handles the very large number of mesothelioma lawsuits that began to be filed in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Once the 1990s rolled around, the city set up a two-tiered system in order to handle the flood of asbestos lawsuits being filed against companies for negligence in knowingly exposing workers, consumers and the general public to the deadly compound. The Baltimore system involved shuffling the sickest people in the front of the line, so to speak, giving them priority. Meanwhile, those who claimed exposure but had no symptoms were sent to the end of the line.

After establishment in Baltimore, this same system was then copied by numerous other jurisdictions across the country. Consolidated cases have become exceedingly rare since then, and only a few number of cases from the “back-burner docket” go to trial each year in each district. That’s a huge number of plaintiffs who have been left to languish indefinitely. (It’s estimated some of these cases could take as long as four decades to get their day in trial, by which time almost everyone involved will surely be gone – or close to it.)

The system may have made some sense at the time. But the problem is, many of those people who were sent to the end of the line are now very sick, having been formally diagnosed with mesothelioma. This is an asbestos-caused cancer that takes years to manifest, and then when it does, it progresses quickly and is fatal. Because of this and due to the congestion of these cases in the courts, these plaintiffs have no realistic opportunity to have their cases heard before they pass away.

So this is where the Baltimore attorney is trying to enact change in the system. He is proposing to revert back to an earlier method of handling the voluminous number of asbestos cases. That method involved having the circuit court consider a large number of cases all at once by using a few examples to establish a broad correlation between illness and asbestos. This would effectively allow plaintiffs to sue in groups, based on their general circumstances, instead of having to wait years to have their case heard individually.

If the court approves the proposal, it could mean some 13,000 old cases would be brought back to to the table.

Of course, the defendant lawyers are vigorously opposing this effort, calling it a “backdoor attempt” to push them into settling cases that can’t stand on their own merits. They argue that returning to the old method would mean a violation of their right to a fair hearing.

It will be up to the circuit judge to decide if this is true and if so, if the degree to which it’s true trumps the plaintiffs’ right to have their cases heard before they die.

It’s not clear when a decision may be forthcoming, but we will certainly keep you posted.
Continue reading

The insurance industry had underestimated the amount it would have to pay out in asbestos-related claims by about $11 billion.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that the industry had previously estimated it would spend about $74 billion. They’ve already paid out roughly $51 billion in claims from decades-old policies. However, they had only set aside another $23 billion for future claims.

As it turns out, according to a new study by the A.M. Best ratings firm, the insurance companies will likely need about $11 billion more. What’s more, the number of mesothelioma and asbestosis lawsuits show now sign of slowing anytime soon, the firm warned.

The reasons for the underestimation are varied. Primarily, it has to do with the fact that juries are awarding higher amounts on individual claims than previously anticipated, and there are more claims in general. Plaintiff attorneys – those representing your rights – have had an increased measure of success in recent years, perhaps explained by a better understanding of how and why this disease develops and what it takes to prove negligence to a jury.

The burden of proof is still on plaintiff attorneys – so you need a good one – but what must be proven is fairly straightforward.

Numerous manufacturers and companies in the 20th Century produced and used asbestos and products made with asbestos, a dangerous mineral compound that exposes people to a slow developing but fatal cancer called mesothelioma.

Symptoms are non-existent for decades. When the disease is finally diagnosed – usually following bouts of shortness of breath, constant chest pain or cough, night sweats or feet swelling – the prognosis is usually poor, and the disease progresses rapidly. (This is why we are just now seeing cases brought forward where exposure happened in the 1980s and earlier.)

The reason you may have grounds upon which to sue the manufacturer or your former employer or whichever entity subjected you to exposure (and there may in fact be several) is because of the fact that many of these firms where aware of the danger asbestos presented. Yet, they failed to warn or take steps to protect employees or consumers. This negligence has resulted in a flood of lawsuits that collectively have resulted in billions of dollars in payouts.

In fact, A.M. Best reports there are far more claims overall than what the insurance industry anticipated. But this should not have come as a surprise, as there were a very large number of people exposed to asbestos over an extended period of time. Even if many of those individuals have since passed, their survivors often will bring action against these companies on their deceased loved ones’ behalf.

Asbestos hasn’t been widely used since the 1970s, so the cases will taper off at some point – but not any time soon.

The additional $11 billion the insurance industry is expected to dole out over the next several years won’t be enough to cripple the industry, but some have expressed worry.

However, to put it into perspective, $11 billion is about half of what insurers are expected to pay out in losses following Hurricane Sandy.
Continue reading

The first of eleven defendants from two different companies indicted on 23 counts by a federal grand jury last summer has pleaded guilty to an attempt to cover-up the illegal removal and disposal of asbestos.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers know that more and more often, state and federal authorities are pursuing criminal actions against those who violate environmental laws designed to protect against exposure to the deadly fibers. These cases show us that the risks posed by this once widely-used product have not dissipated, and officials must remain vigilant against those who are negligent with regard to the safety of workers, nearby residents and consumers.

Asbestos, when left undisturbed, may not pose a major health risk. However, if the particles become airborne, they become deadly.

This case, out of New York state, in particular is noteworthy for the fact that so many people were reportedly involved in the cover-up. One of the companies was an air quality control firm, which allegedly failed to properly conduct the required tests.

Local news reports indicate that the first person to plead guilty in the case was the project compliance monitor for that company. He admitted to being an accessory after the fact. As part of his plea, he has admitted that he falsified inspection reports in order to protect the contracting company that was hired to remove asbestos from an older, six-tower housing complex.

As the first to plead, he was allowed to plead to one misdemeanor charge, as opposed to any of the felony charges he could have faced, in exchange for his testimony against the other remaining defendants. These defendants also include government inspectors – two from the city and one from the state.

The former compliance monitor has attested to the fact that both he and the contractor supervisor conspired to officially report that the asbestos had been successfully removed from four of the buildings, despite knowing this wasn’t true.

To grant some perspective, this is a huge complex sitting on 17 acres of land. It had been a notorious blight on the area, which was visible from the expressway and positioned just behind a large medical center.

Then, the housing authority made the decision to tear the structures down and redevelop the site into a $100 million retirement community. But in order to legally demolish property containing asbestos, the housing authority had to first hire a company to properly remove the asbestos – something they believed they had done.

However, court documents allege that the companies told workers to cut holes in the floors and dump the material down these holes. Workers also didn’t properly wet down the asbestos before the work – a process that makes it less dangerous to handle because it decreases the risk of the fibers becoming airborne. The material was also reportedly left in open-air containers throughout the site.

At this point, both companies are now out-of-business.
Continue reading

An asbestos products manufacturer contracted by the U.S. Navy in the 1950s and 1960s is being sued by a man who later developed mesothelioma.

Unfortunately, our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand the company may have a good chance of ducking responsibility, given the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent ruling to remand the case back to federal court, where the firm hopes to obtain immunity.

In Ruppel v. CBS Corporation, the issue is whether a contractor for the government has a “colorable federal defense” in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). This law holds that when a civil action against the U.S. government or any agency or officer of the U.S. government or any person acting under that officer or agency is filed in state court, it may be removed by that party to a U.S. district (federal) court.

The reason the defendant in this case wants the lawsuit to be heard in federal court is that it plans to make the argument that it is entitled to immunity as a government contractor. The company, which at the time was doing business as Westinghouse, doesn’t deny that it made and sold asbestos products to the Navy. However, it maintains that this was done in accordance with direct specifications from the Navy. The company further asserts that the Navy had known of the dangers of asbestos since the early 1920s, and yet ordered these products anyway. (Specifically, we’re talking about turbines.)

The plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to the asbestos from the company both during his Navy service and later when he oversaw the construction of a Navy ship as a civilian. From start to finish, this spanned from 1946 through 1971.

But as is typical with mesothelioma cases, the plaintiff did not become ill until decades later. Early this year, he filed a civil lawsuit in state court in Illinois against CBS, as well as 40 other defendants for his mesothelioma diagnosis, contending he contracted the disease as a result of exposure to asbestos products that were made, sold, distributed or installed by each of the defendants.

CBS moved to have the case remanded to federal court under the above-stated federal statute. That request was granted, but then the plaintiff appealed to the federal judge, saying he was only arguing a failure to warn, for which the Department of Defense does not provide immunity. The federal judge granted this request without allowing the defense the opportunity to respond.

CBS then appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which reversed the federal judge’s decision and ping-ponged the case back to federal court. The appellate court said that while the plaintiff had mentioned the failure to warn issue in his complaint, the core of the complaint had more to do with his actual exposure.

This move, of course, gives the defendant a strategic advantage. It shows too that the legal teams that represent these firms are savvy and aggressive. You need someone your side who can match them pound-for-pound – and beat them.
Continue reading

A five-year study will be devoted to learning more about how two communities are working to recover from widespread asbestos exposure after a local asbestos factory was shuttered.

As our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand it, the University of Pennsylvania, Penn Medicine, was awarded a $1.2 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to move forward with the research.

Specifically, the researchers are looking at the communities of South and West Ambler, just north of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. There, asbestos isn’t just a past or passing concern. It continues to be a very real problem, due to the extremely high levels of the product that was used throughout the region.

Asbestos, as you probably know, is the sole cause of a rare and deadly form of cancer known as mesothelioma. A person who is exposed to asbestos through airborne particles or fibers is at high risk for developing mesothelioma or asbestosis, a similar disease. Both ailments are fatal, though asbestosis is more of a chronic condition, while mesothelioma kills very quickly. In both cases, a sufferer will not know they are sick until years or decades after exposure.

According to researchers, these communities have been at risk since the late 1880s, when the asbestos factory was first founded. Those who live or have lived there have had to contend with either occupational exposure or environmental exposure. In these areas, the Pennsylvania Department of Health has already deemed these residents to be at a much higher risk of developing mesothelioma than those living elsewhere in Pennsylvania.

One of the associate professors preparing to conduct the study said that not only are residents suffering an existing health risk, but ironically, the entire community suffered a horrible financial blow when the asbestos factory shut down.

The researchers are aiming to develop a storehouse of information relating to asbestos-related health risks, as well as profile individuals who were affected by either working or living near the asbestos factory. The effort will also provide an opportunity for an information exchange among scientists and residents. And it will serve as a case study for communities that are facing similar challenges – and there are several of them throughout the United States. In Massachusetts, for example, researchers believe there are a total of 44 asbestos exposure sites, such as the A.C. Lawrence Factory in Peabody, which has been sued multiple times by former workers who developed mesothelioma.

The major components of this project are set to include:

• A documentation of the history through recorded interviews of low-income Italian and African American immigrant asbestos workers, as well as their families and neighbors;
• Development of an accessible repository of news accounts, documents, life stories, photographs and scientific data surrounding the communities, which will ultimately be used as a resource for researchers, students and community activists.

While the researchers hope this study will result in a wealth of information for anyone who wishes to access it, they said they have already discovered in the pilot portion of the study that sharing their stories has been incredibly healing for mesothelioma sufferers and their families.
Continue reading

The state supreme court in Virginia has ruled that the widow of a man who died after exposure to asbestos by a private shipping company while he was serving in the Navy is allowed to sue the shipbuilder.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand the issue of contention in this case was whether the widow was barred from seeking compensation due to the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act.

At issue in Dorthe Crisp Gibbs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., was whether his injuries and wrongful death fell within the purview of the state’s worker’s compensation act. This act would have provided exclusive remedy to the plaintiff. However, the Navy and other armed forces don’t fall under the act.

Here is why this case was so tricky:

In the early 1960s, a man named Kenneth Gibbs was enlisted as a seaman, specifically, an electronics technician, on active duty with the U.S. Navy.

In 1962, the Navy contracted with Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company to buy two nuclear submarines, costing approximately $46.4 million each. This ships were to be built at the Shipyard and then delivered to the Navy when they were finished. During the course of that construction, however, the federal government would have access to the ship for both training and testing purposes.

In the middle of 1965, Gibbs was assigned to one of these in-construction ships for extensive inspection purposes, as it was to be completed and delivered within six months. It was during his time aboard this vessel that he was exposed to airborne asbestos, which is the only known cause of mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is a cancer that lies dormant for many years, but when it strikes, it is aggressive and fatal.

During the course of his employment, Gibbs was made to install asbestos products, exposing him (and numerous other workers) to large quantities of asbestos dust and fibers.

In 2008, after Gibbs received diagnosis of this terminal illness, he filed suit against the shipbuilder. He died early the following year.

The defendants answered the lawsuit with the contention that the Workers’ Compensation remedy was the widow’s only legal recourse. Of course, this was a significant amount less than the company would pay if it lost in civil litigation. The district court sided with the defendant, holding that the act plainly applies. The case was dismissed with prejudice.

However, upon appeal, the state supreme court justices ruled that the Navy had not accepted the provisions of the act, and therefore employees of the Navy weren’t subject to the act. The lower court’s decision was reversed, paving the way for Gibbs’ widow to file suit.

Had he worked directly for the shipyard, as opposed to the Navy, the outcome of the case may have been different.

It’s not an automatic win, but it appears a strong case can be made, based on the facts as laid forth in past court filings.

Simply being granted the opportunity to bring your case before the court is an important first step.
Continue reading

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced recently that her office had reached a settlement in a lawsuit against a man who didn’t properly remove asbestos from roofing shingles as he worked to renovate numerous New Bedford homes.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that this individual’s actions put not only himself and his employees at risk of illness, but also may have risked the long-term health of the homeowners and neighbors.

The defendant, from Acushnet, reportedly owns two of those buildings, which he in turn rents out to tenants.

According to the lawsuit, the renovations were conducted between late fall 2009 and the spring of 2011. The defendant hired contractors to do the renovations, part of which involved replacing the roof.

It’s not clear whether the defendant realized when the renovations started that asbestos was present. But if he did not, he had a responsibility to find out before work began.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection holds in 310 CMR 7.15 that all owners and/or operators (this includes building owners, renovation contractors, heating and plumbing contractors and flooring contractors) must determine all asbestos-containing material present at the site – friable or not – and whether those materials are going to be impacted by the proposed work. This must be done before a single hammer is swung or nail pounded.

Failure to pinpoint and remove all the asbestos-containing material before it is impacted by renovation can result in significant risk of exposure, which means those doing the work are going to incur higher costs for clean-up, decontamination, disposal and monitoring.

Of course, many try to sidestep this process altogether by simply not following the law while hoping they don’t get caught.

But in this case, it appears there were some very watchful neighbors who alerted authorities to the safety concerns. Among the conduct being carried out by the workers:

• Contractors were spotted power washing dirty asbestos shingles before they ever removed them. This caused asbestos debris to be blasted into the air and onto the ground in the area where the work was being conducted.
• Contractors were spotted dropping asbestos shingles out the window from several stories up. Those pieces would then shatter in a cloud of dust upon falling to the ground.
• Contractors were seen covering old asbestos-laden shingles with new ones. They were also drilling into the old shingles in order to install heating vents. All of this resulted in the release of airborne asbestos fibers – which are deadly.

The lawsuit additionally stated that the defendant did not follow through in his responsibility to cover, seal or label containers holding asbestos at the construction site.

The suit had originally sought fines of $25,000 for each day that the defendant failed to follow proper asbestos abatement laws and/or failed to take proper safety precautions.

The exact details of the settlement were not released by Coakley’s office.
Continue reading

One of Australia’s biggest electrician unions has issued a warning saying hundreds of members have died from mesothelioma after decades of working on meter boards containing asbestos.

The Electrical Trades Union has called on the individual states there to carry out extensive audits on the equipment of all government-owned buildings and homes with meters built before 1983 in order to ensure the safety of its members.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers know this is not the first time electricians have been identified as a group at high risk for developing the deadly disease.

We’ve talked a lot in our Massachusetts Mesothelioma Lawyer’s Blog about those who previously worked in shipbuilding and automotive manufacturing. But electricians are at equal risk.

In addition to being used as a heat insulator and fire-retardant, asbestos was also commonly used to reinforce or bind cement and plastic. So it was often used in building materials like drywall, plaster, floor tiles, roofing and insulation. Additionally, it was sometimes used in electrical panel partitions, electrical cloth and electric wiring insulation. The level of risk depends on when it was manufactured. The older the material is, the more likely it is to contain asbestos.

From 1990 to 1999, those who had previously been in the construction industry – including electricians – accounted for 24 percent of all mesothelioma deaths. Electricians accounted for 4.4 percent of those.

According to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the most common safety risks for electricians are falls, electrocution, exposure to overhead objects and exposure airborne contaminants, including asbestos.

There have been a handful of large lawsuits filed over the last 10 years against companies that allegedly exposed electricians to asbestos, causing them to develop mesothelioma in their later years. In 2006, an Ohio appellate court ruled that General Motors was aware that one electrician was being endangered by exposure to asbestos in wiring and the insulation on steam pipes. The following year, the family of a California electrician who died of mesothelioma settled for $2.3 million with six defendants. And then in 2010, a Philadelphia jury found Rockwell Automation Inc. (i.e., Allen-Bradley Company) liable in the asbestos-related death of a Navy electrician’s mate, and awarded his family $6.5 million. He had died in 2008 at age 71, less than a year after he was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

In Australia, a warning was sent out after it was confirmed that an electrician in the southern region of the country was exposed to the dust while working on a meter.

Although asbestos isn’t common in American electric meters, it is common in a lot of older structures. While it generally won’t pose a risk if it’s encapsulated or undisturbed, electricians are often required to rewire buildings, which means they need to crawl through or reach into areas where they might disturb the asbestos.
Continue reading

As those in Massachusetts and throughout the East Coast begin to recover from the punishing wind and flood damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, the massive storm has given rise to another concern: asbestos exposure.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that although the storm didn’t technically make landfall until it reached New Jersey, the winds punished a large swath of the Massachusetts coastline, toppling power lines and trees, causing power outages and, in some cases, damaging older structures.

It is the latter of these that causes the most concern, in Boston, as well as in the harder-hit areas of New Jersey and New York City.

These are comparatively older cities, with many structures built before the mid-to-late 1980s. It’s estimated that up to 35 million schools, homes and businesses contain asbestos at least in some levels, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Many construction companies and manufacturers that used this material knew of the dangers, following an epidemic of mesothelioma and asbestosis among asbestos miners.

Some of the building materials for which asbestos was used include:

• Drywall and joint compound;
• Vinyl floor tiles, adhesives and sheeting;
• Roofing tars, siding, shingles and felts;
• Popcorn ceilings;
• Transite panels, countertops, siding and pipes;
• Stage curtains;
• Thermal pipe insulation;
• HAVAC flexible duct connectors;
• Interior fire doors;
• Fireproofing;
• Caulk.

In Boston, these materials have been identified in numerous schools, government buildings, office structures and homes.

Generally speaking, the material isn’t harmful unless it’s disturbed. That’s why anytime there is renovation occurring where asbestos is present, state environmental law requires the hiring of a contractor who is experienced in safe asbestos removal.

However, hurricanes don’t follow state law, and this one appears to have potentially disturbed a large number of older structures that contain asbestos. Specifically, it has torn off roofs, ripped apart walls containing asbestos insulation and exposed asbestos-laden piping.

As long as its wet, this may not be a major concern. However, as the exposed material begins to dry, it becomes more friable, which means the particles are more likely to become airborne. This is when it is especially dangerous because it’s those airborne fibers that become lodged in the lining of the lungs with deadly consequences.

Unfortunately, these microscopic fibers aren’t generally visible except when there are large heaps, and there is no distinct smell or taste to warn the victim.

It’s important for those digging through the wreckage for any valuables to be aware of this risk, and use proper respiratory protection if necessary. If you aren’t sure whether the home or structure had asbestos, better to err on the side of caution. If at all possible, hire a professional to help, and avoid activities that are going to generate dust, such as vacuuming or sweeping debris that may contain asbestos.

Another concern is that some of that debris could have contaminated the water supply as the storm surge created massive flooding.

We tell you all this not to create a further scare, but to warn you so that you and your loved ones may take proper precautions to protect yourselves.

We wish everyone affected by Sandy a swift and safe recovery.
Continue reading

Massachusetts voters have approved the use of marijuana as medicine, a decision that has been hailed by mesothelioma patients and others suffering terminal or serious conditions.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that the law, which makes Massachusetts the 18th in the country to permit medical marijuana use, allows patients to possess up to a two-month supply of the drug for their own personal medicinal use. The exact definition of a “two-month supply” has yet to be determined by the Department of Public Health. Patients and caregivers will need to register with the Health Department by submitting the physician’s certification.

In order to qualify to receive medicinal marijuana, patients would have to have a debilitating medical condition. This would include ailments such as mesothelioma and other cancers, HIV-positive status or AIDS, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Parkinson’s disease or hepatitis C. He or she would also have to obtain a written certification from their doctor, indicating that the patient has a condition that is debilitating and would likely obtain some benefit from the use of medical marijuana.

We know that mesothelioma is a debilitating condition. In fact, it’s terminal. Marijuana is not a cure, but some sufferers in other states where medical marijuana is legal have attested to the fact that the drug can help to ease some of the symptoms.

Specifically, mesothelioma sufferers often undergo various painful surgeries, chemotherapy and other treatments to help prolong their lives. As a result, they often suffer from severe nausea, vomiting and weight loss.

Various studies have proven that marijuana quells nausea and helps stimulate appetite and promote weight gain.

It may also help to reduce anxiety, improve the quality of a patient’s sleep and provide some measure of pain relief.

A Harvard University study conducted in 2001 indicated that THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, reduced tumor growth in common lung cancer by 50 percent, and further reduced the spread of cancer. However, this study did not include mesothelioma patients, and there is no indication that marijuana actually slows the advance of this aggressive and rare form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. Still, the relief it may bring for other symptoms could be enough for patients to at least try it.

Studies have shown there are more than 400 natural chemicals occurring in marijuana, including Vitamin A and steroids.

Because many patients who have asbestosis or mesothelioma have weak lungs and trouble breathing, consumption of marijuana in edible forms (as opposed to being smoked) is often preferable. This helps to avoid any further aggravation of the lung tissue.

Some of the different forms of edible marijuana include baking the plant into foods like brownies, cookies, chocolates or rice crispy treats. It can also be made into hard candies, teas and cold drinks. Different dispensaries may offer different options.

One concern with regard to the legalization is how state officials will seek to avert federal action, as marijuana possession and distribution is still illegal under federal law.

Typically, though, criminal sanctions have been pursued against dispensaries operators or those skirting state laws – not patients.
Continue reading