Boston Mesothelioma

June 26, 2012

Study: Peritoneal Mesothelioma More Common in Non-Occupational Exposure

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers write a lot about people who were exposed to this deadly disease by way of their employer.

A lot of times these were individuals who worked in shipyards, military service, factories, construction or some other job where airborne asbestos was a common threat.

Something we haven’t discussed at great length, however, is non-work-related exposure, and in particular, the peritoneal mesothelioma that often results from this type of contact with the carcinogen.

Peritoneal mesothelioma accounts for roughly 10 percent of mesothelioma cases that are caused by workplace asbestos exposure. However, nearly 50 percent of all peritoneal mesothelioma cases are the result of exposure that happened outside the workplace.

Pleural mesothelioma is what we often refer to as the cancer that attacks the thin lining of membrane around the lungs. It’s the most common kind, and it accounts for 70 percent of mesothelioma cases total.

But peritoneal mesothelioma, which is the second most-common form of the disease, attacks the lining of the stomach.

The latter, as this study noted, is more common in people who were exposed to asbestos someplace other than their work. Most commonly, this meant they lived in a building or home where there was asbestos used in the construction. In other cases, it means living with a family member whose work exposed them to asbestos. When that worker returned home, the asbestos covered their clothing, and was therefore ingested by their family members. So it’s second-hand exposure.

The effects, however, are just as deadly.

The Wake Forest study, conducted by Dr. Jill Ohar, alongside Dr. Edward Levine and a graduate student, analyzed the records and surveys obtained from nearly 400 mesothelioma patients, many of whom were going through civil litigation with regard to their illnesses as well.

The findings of this study are expected to be presented in Boston this September at the International Mesothelioma Interest Group Conference.

Researchers also found that with peritoneal mesothelioma, just as with pleural mesothelioma, the latency period is roughly 42 years. That’s the amount of time it took from the first exposure to diagnosis. Compare that to occupational exposure, where the latency period stands at about 49 years.

However, those with peritoneal mesothelioma do tend to live a bit longer – an average of 57 months after diagnosis, versus roughly 20 months after diagnosis for those with pleural mesothelioma.

Some of that difference, though, was attributed to the fact that those with peritoneal mesothelioma tend to be diagnosed earlier than those with pleural mesothelioma. In the former, the average age at diagnosis was about 51 years-old. With the latter, the patient was about 67 before they were diagnosed.

It’s estimated that nearly 30 million people in the U.S. were exposed to asbestos at work between the years of 1940 and 1979.

As part of ongoing research, the team at Wake Forest is continuing to collect DNA samples from mesothelioma patients. They’re aiming to collect this from 1,000 patients by the end of next year. They’ve just recently passed the 400-mark.
Continue reading

June 22, 2012

Thousands of Cancer Deaths Related to Asbestos Work

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

According to a recent report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, some 8,000 people in Britain who died from cancer had been sickened by some job-related factor – mostly having to do with exposure to asbestos.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that this accounts for more than 5 percent of all cancer deaths in the United Kingdom.

Given the fact the industrialization of that country compared to our own is so similar, we can expect similar results with regard to mesothelioma in Boston and across the U.S.

While asbestos was mostly abandoned in most products in this country by the 1970s, it remains in older buildings and products. The incubation period for mesothelioma is quite long – decades. This means workers who were regularly exposed to the asbestos in their line of work in the 1950s through the 1980s are just now beginning to get sick.

When it comes to mesothelioma, the study found that men were more often impacted than women. With regard to overall cancers, men were more likely to die than women (8 percent versus 6 percent). But mesothelioma doesn’t discriminate – it’s always deadly, no matter who you are or in what capacity you were exposed.

Researchers have indicated that this 8,000 figure was actually a conservative estimate. There are likely more individuals sickened in the U.K. by mesothelioma, but it either wasn’t diagnosed properly or at all. Partially, this is because it causes a swift decline in the patients health. Most who are diagnosed pass away within a year or two.

The World Health Organization said it’s probably that one in every 10 cancers is work-related.

That’s in line with the estimates offered by The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which indicate that an estimated 10 percent of all cancers are related to some form of occupational exposure.

What’s even more upsetting is that a number of these companies continued to use asbestos, the organic compound that causes mesothelioma, long after they knew it was dangerous. They knew their workers would get sick, and yet they continued to use it because it was cheaper and more effective for their own purposes.

And that’s why our Boston mesothelioma lawyers fight so hard in these cases. Our mesothelioma patients and their families deserve compensation for the fact that there is so much they will lose – all for the greed of a company to which they had remained loyal, many of them for decades.

Across the world, it’s estimated that about 1 million deaths are caused by workplace exposures to carcinogens.

And while safety measures have somewhat improved, this should be a reminder to employers to remain diligent in their efforts with regard to worker safety and asbestos removal.
Continue reading

June 17, 2012

Southborough Asbestos Violation Results in $36K Fine

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Accused of increasing the risk of asbestos exposure in Southborough and Provincetown, three entities have been fined more than $35,000 for reportedly illegally storing the dangerous organic compound.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys are encouraged that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection is actively pursuing such cases, though we would argue that in order to deter future violations, penalties should be markedly increased.

Here’s what we know of this case, as reported by state DEP’s information office:

The responsible parties were CJS Holdings II, Inc., of Southborough, Clifford J. Schorer III of Boston and 2 commercial Street Realty Trust 2008 of Provincetown.

They were all collaborating on renovation work, beginning in March 2010.

Investigators with the environmental protection office carried out an inspection on locations of the Trust’s properties in both Provincetown and Southborough. In doing so, they discovered that Schorer had not only conducted the improper removal of insulation and transite panels that contained asbestos from the Provincetown site, he then brought the waste from those materials to the Southborough site, where he stored it.

The site in Southborough was never approved for this purpose.

What’s more, the way that he stored it is alarming. It was packed haphazardly into regular, household trash bags that were ripped and unmarked.

When the inspectors spotted this, it was ordered that a licensed asbestos contractor be immediately brought on site to remove, package and get rid of all the items containing asbestos that were still on both properties.

The DEP’s acting director was clear in stating that not only property owners but individuals and contract workers who are involved in any type of renovation have to educate themselves on what their responsibilities are in terms of how they are required to handle asbestos removal and disposal. All of it has to be done according to very specific requirements. Failure to do so may not only result in severe fines, but could ultimately expose employees and the public to cancer-causing materials.

When a company or individual is completing renovation work, particularly on an older building that contains asbestos, they have to notify the DEP of their work.

In this case, the three entities will really only be responsible for forking over $4,000. The remaining $32,000-plus is going to be suspended, unless the companies don’t comply with the DEP’s requirements within a year.

Companies that might have questions about how to properly dispose of asbestos material can contact and consult with the DEP. Individuals who suspect that a company or individual may be illegally handling or dumping asbestos materials should contact the DEP and tell them as much information as possible, including who is involved, what you saw/heard/smelled, where it happened and when.

While a single incident of asbestos may not be enough to cause mesothelioma, renovation workers or residents living nearby may suffer repeated exposure that could leave them vulnerable.
Continue reading

June 14, 2012

Massachusetts Mesothelioma Lawyers Must Be Meticulous

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers are nothing if not meticulous.

That’s important for lawyers in any sector of law, but it’s critical in asbestos exposure litigation because many of these cases involve evidence that goes back decades.

An incident stemming from a mesothelioma win in Mississippi illustrates the importance of this.

The plaintiff won his lawsuit against his former employer, only to have that verdict later overturned by the state’s high court because of a technicality.

Here’s what we know of the situation, as reported by CBS Money Watch:

Back in 2010, a man named Troy Lofton sued a company called CPChem. You may not have heard of them, but you’ve probably heard of ConocoPhillips and Chevron Corp. This was a joint venture between the two of them.

Lofton said that the company, for more than two decades, knowingly shipped to the gas and oil well industry a product that contained the dangerous organic compound. He said he suffered through exposure for those 20 years, and as a result, now has to be on oxygen for the rest of his life.

The company didn’t deny that its products contained asbestos – or that they knew about it. But CPChem said that some of the documents used by Lofton’s attorney to prove his case were drilling records that showed the use of asbestos on certain rigs, but did not necessarily correspond to the rigs that Lofton worked on.

A Mississippi jury sided with Lofton, awarding him more than $15 million.

The case was appealed all the way to the state’s Supreme Court.

The high court didn’t rule on the actual verdict, saying whether it was faulty or not. However, it did order a whole new trial, after determining that the man’s mesothelioma attorney’s reading of those drilling records in open court was inappropriate, particularly given that those records weren’t formally admitted into evidence when the company’s medical expert was testifying.

A state Supreme Court justice, writing for the majority, said that although the records were in fact written by Lofton’s former employer, his attorney didn’t do enough to prove that they were applicable to the wells on which Lofton worked.

While this decision is indeed disappointing, one positive aspect was they way they ruled regarding Lofton’s statute of limitations.

Lofton had been diagnosed with a lung disease way back in 1993. But at the time, he had no idea why he was sick.

The three-year statute of limitations during which he had to file suit should have expired in 1996, the company contended. Instead, he filed his lawsuit in 2003.

But how could he have filed his lawsuit against anyone by 1996 when he didn’t know until 2003 that anyone else might have been responsible?

He couldn’t have, and the state’s Supreme Court agreed with him at least on this point.
Continue reading

June 10, 2012

Boston Mesothelioma Suits & Multiple Defendants

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Companies responsible for asbestos exposure in Boston and throughout the country use every possible tool at their disposal to divert the focus from their liability for mesothelioma sickness and death.

The latest involves smear tactic targeting mesothelioma lawyers, saying their actions are akin to fraud, particularly when there is more than one defendant.

They contend that a number of plaintiffs are greedy, and file against multiple companies in the hopes of getting the largest payoffs possible, without regard for the actual responsibility those companies may hold.

But here’s the truth of the matter: Many of our clients pass away prematurely, before the conclusion of their case. Because of the merciless stall tactics employed by these companies, the litigation can sometimes drag on for years. The families of these individuals suffer greatly, having been deprived of their loved one’s companionship – and income. So are these cases about money? To an extent. We do want to see mesothelioma victims and their families taken care of. They deserve compensation for all they have endured.

However, these cases are also about principle. These companies should be punished for their extreme negligence in failing to protect the public from their products. The latent effect of cases like this is that other corporations who might perpetuate negligent actions in the future think twice when they realize there could be severe financial consequences for doing so.

A recent complaint filed by a sealing company in a North Carolina bankruptcy case alleges that asbestos exposure attorneys committed fraud by claiming two differing versions of how an individual got sick, in order to up the chances of a big pay-out.

We’ll explore the specifics in a moment, but here’s another truth: Decades ago, there were countless products that contained cancer-causing asbestos. It would not be uncommon for a person’s illness to have been caused by exposure to more than one product, as a result of the negligence of more than one company.

Now in this case, Garlock Sealing Technologies has lobbed accusations of fraud against the attorneys of an asbestos law firm, which sued the company back in 2008 in Texas. The basis of that case was the mesothelioma diagnosis of a man named John Phillips. It was contended that Phillips’ sickness was the result of exposure to Garlock products. At the same time, the law firms were reportedly filing suit against another company as well.

Garlock said it paid much more than it would have had it known that the plaintiff was pursuing claims against another company. Had the case gone to trial, that other claim might have affected the percentage of the company’s liability, according to a jury.

They contend that the secrecy surrounding the bankruptcy trust system (in which companies with a high number of asbestos litigation claims file a Chapter 11 and set aside a trust account to pay out the ongoing claims) leaves the system rife for abuse.

However, in the fall of last year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded an extensive investigation and found there was no evidence of fraud.
Continue reading

June 10, 2012

Betz v. Pneumo Abex llc. – A Blow to New England Mesothelioma Cases

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Boston mesothelioma attorneys are going to have to get even more aggressive in fighting for their clients, following a decision by the high court in Pennsylvania, which could have far-reaching implications.

At issue in Betz v. Pneumo Abex llc. was whether scientific evidence showing that even a slight amount of exposure to asbestos was enough to merit liability in mesothelioma cases.

In a 6-0 opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that it was not.

This gets to the heart of what’s known as the “any fiber” or “any breath” legal theory of causation of who is responsible when someone falls ill – and eventually dies – from mesothelioma, a rare cancer attributable almost exclusively to asbestos exposure.

Essentially, it’s not enough to prove that the individual was simply exposed to asbestos as a one-off situation. A defendant has to show that repeated and negligent exposure was responsible for their cancer.

In most mesothelioma cases this is not going to be a devastating blow because it’s usually not difficult to prove that the responsible party was negligent in its asbestos exposure and further that the individual was repeatedly exposed. A lot of these cases involve former workers whose employers did not do enough to shield them from exposure.

That was the case here in Pennsylvania.

In early 2005, a retired auto mechanic filed a complaint for product liability against Allied Signal Inc., Ford Motor Company and others, alleging that in his nearly 45-year career, he was repeatedly exposed to asbestos in products such as brake linings, that directly resulted in his mesothelioma.

After filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff died, and his wife took over the case.

This was one of a number of similar cases against the same defendants that were pending in the state’s common pleas court. Those defendants anticipated that several of the plaintiffs, including this one, intended to base at least part of their case on the expert legal theory that purports that every single asbestos exposure, no matter how small, contributes to asbestos-related diseases.

These companies wanted to stop that theory from being used in each of these trials, so they filed what’s called a global motion, which would stand in each of the pending Pennsylvania cases. Their stance was that this single-fiber theory of exposure was not rooted in valid science.

Disappointingly, the justices, in a 53-page decision, sided with the companies, saying that it was not enough to show that someone had simply been exposed to asbestos. It had to be shown that the exposure was significant.

Where this becomes a challenge for mesothelioma attorneys is that they now have evidence of the dosage of asbestos to which a person was exposed, proving for example that one company may hold greater responsibility than another, based on the level of exposure.

Of course, this ruling is only valid in Pennsylvania, although Texas has also barred this theory. However, given the precedent that’s been set and the fact that a lot of these same companies are party to cases here in Massachusetts, it likely won’t be long before this issue arises here as well.

That means your Boston mesothelioma attorney must ensure your case is well-researched and solid before moving forward.
Continue reading

May 28, 2012

Boston Mesothelioma Lawyers: The Trouble With Trusts

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

As we’ve previously reported in our Boston Mesothelioma Lawyers’ Blog, more than 100 companies deemed responsible for lethal asbestos exposure have filed for bankruptcy and established trusts in order to pay out claimants and minimize litigation.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers recognize that there are pros and cons to this system.

On the one hand, there is the assurance that there will likely be money still left for those who will file Boston mesothelioma claims in the future. This is particularly important for a disease that remains dormant for decades.

On the flip side, those payments that are made are generally pennies on the dollar. They are nowhere near what you will get if you are successful in winning the case in court.

Now for most people, we know, the dollar amount isn’t always the point. Of course, you want to ensure that your family will be cared for. However, for many people, it’s often about the principal of the matter. These companies knew what they were doing was killing people. They knew it. And whether motivated by greed or some other force, they chose not to act. They chose not to change their practices. And they chose not to protect their workers and those in the general public.

Through bankruptcy filings and the establishment of a trust, these companies are allowed to remain operational. They are allowed to continue to make a profit.

Some people will see this as a plus. After all, how can they continue to make payments at all if they are shut down?

However, the fact that these trusts don’t guarantee a fair pay-out for those who file a claim is unfair, and should be addressed by our legal system.

We know that the first asbestos-related claims started trickling in in the 1960s. At the time, asbestos was still in regular use in the U.S. In fact, as late as 1973, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that some 800,000 metric tons of asbestos were consumed by the U.S. That figure has fallen by about 99.9 percent in the U.S. since then.

Also in the interim, about 100 asbestos trusts were established.

Now, all of these trusts value claims in a different way. Take for example the Johns Manville trust. It values a diagnosis of mesothelioma at around $350,000. Meanwhile, the Owens Corning trust values that same diagnosis at about $215,000.

This is likely far less than what you would get if you took the case to court. On the other hand, a court case can be much more time-consuming then filing a claim with an asbestos trust.

The John Manville trust says that in the nearly 25 years since it was founded, it has received nearly 880,000 claims (10 times more than what it had initially anticipated) and has paid out an estimated $4.2 billion. What’s more, filings are actually increasing as more and more people are learning their asbestos exposure has led to a mesothelioma diagnosis. In fact, filings have risen nearly 60 percent just in the first nine months of 2011, when compared to 2010.

The trusts’ assets, meanwhile, dropped by more than 10 percent.

So now, the trust has been paying out legitimate, approved claims for far less than what they are actually worth. So for example, if you are approved for a claim of $100,000, you’re likely to actually get about $7,500. That is pittance, and it’s likely not even enough to scratch the surface of your medical bills.

Other trusts are paying anywhere from 18 to 35 cents on the dollar.

In some cases, trusts have asked to suspend all current cases while the sort out how much they can actually afford to pay.

The point is, if you are diagnosed with mesothelioma, you do have options – and those should be discussed at length with an experienced Boston mesothelioma attorney.
Continue reading

May 24, 2012

In Re: Fed-Mogul Global, Inc. – Ruling on Asbestos Trusts

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Boston mesothelioma lawyers have been following the developments surrounding the case involving Fed-Mogul Global, Inc.

In Boston mesothelioma cases – and really, in mesothelioma cases all over the country – it’s been common over the last 20 years for businesses accused of exposure to asbestos to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

They do this because they otherwise wouldn’t be able to stay in business if they had to pay out even a handful of the past, current and future asbestos exposure claims. So with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, they can re-organize the business in such a way that they establish an asbestos trust that they regularly pay into.

People who have legitimate claims against that company for asbestos exposure and a subsequent illness, such as mesothelioma, can file a claim for a portion of that trust money.

The idea is to ensure that as many people as possible will be able to obtain compensation for dangerous exposure, rather than only a few complainants sucking the company dry and forcing it to close.

Many companies see handling these cases in bankruptcy court more favorable than having them wrung through the regular tort system, where they would likely be tied up in litigation for decades.

This was the track Fed-Mogul Global Inc. took. This company, the world’s largest manufacturer of automobile parts, as well as 150 of its affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy back in 2001. this was amid some 500,000 personal injury claims against the company for asbestos exposure. At the time, it had spent more than $350 million both defending against and settling asbestos exposure claims. And the claims showed no signs of stopping.

The establishment of a trust through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company asserted, would assure they could pay out as many as possible and still stay in business. As part of that bankruptcy, the company listed as an asset its right to recovery liability insurance on the claims. So in other words, plaintiffs seeking relief from the trust could also go after the insurance companies as well if the exposure happened while the company was covered by a particular insurer.

However, insurance companies bucked this, saying that the contract the insurers had with the company expressly stated that plan would violate the anti-assignment provisions in the contract. In other words, Fed-Mogul Global could not transfer policies or insurance rights without the consent of those insurance companies – which they obviously weren’t going to provide in this case.

So now, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Third Circuit, in a 68-page opinion, has sided with the insurance companies in stating that Fed-Mogul Global could not transfer its responsibility onto the insurance companies.

It’s important to note that while bankruptcy law is intended to permit well-intended, honest debtors to start afresh, it should not be a means for wrong-doers to obtain a safe haven. Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys understand that a bankruptcy does not absolve a company of responsibility for their past actions, and we will fight to gain you the compensation you rightly deserve.
Continue reading

May 20, 2012

Boston Mesothelioma Lawyers: Genetic Predisposition

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Boston mesothelioma lawyers are constantly on the lookout for information regarding new treatments for those diagnosed with mesothelioma in New England.

As of yet, there is sadly no cure for this cancer, which usually kills within a year of diagnosis.

However, scientists appear to be pressing on in studying this deadly disease from every angle. That has resulted in the most recent findings, which indicate that there may be a genetic mutation that could contribute to a person’s susceptibility to mesothelioma, a cancer that kills roughly 3,000 people each year.

Now, a few things that are important to put into context. The first is that exposure to asbestos is the primary cause of mesothelioma, which is otherwise a rare cancer that attacks the lining of vital organs. The asbestos exposure often occurs many years prior to an actual diagnosis, so the disease often remains latent for decades.

Secondly, it’s important to note that even if it’s true that a gene could increase a person’s susceptibility to sickness, it does not release some of these companies who perpetuated the asbestos exposure from liability.

That said, what the National Institutes of Health have discovered is that even though a large number of people have been exposed to asbestos (mainly before the 1970s) not everyone who was exposed gets sick. It is believed that about 11 million people were exposed to asbestos in the U.S. in the years between 1940 and 1978.

With symptoms remaining latent for 25 to 50 years, mesothelioma cases are expected to peak around 2020.

What researchers found in focusing on families that had high rates of mesothelioma or other cancers also had an eye mutation. That mutation was inside a gene called BAP1. A number of other patients who had no family history of cancer also had this same eye mutation.

Those with this mutation were also more likely than those without it to develop other types of cancers, including ovarian, breast, pancreatic or renal. This is the gene that acts to suppress the activity of tumors. So it would make sense that if someone has a mutation of this gene, they would be at higher risk to develop cancer.

Of course, like all mutations, some are genetic, but then some are apparently random. Exposure to certain carcinogens (like asbestos) can either create a mutation or increase a person’s risk that the mutation will multiply, or in other words, turn cancerous.

So to break that down, just because a person has the mutation doesn’t mean they will necessarily develop cancer. And just because a person doesn’t have the mutation doesn’t mean they are completely immune to a mutation.

The idea with this study is that if people are aware that they have this genetic mutation, they should take extra caution to avoid exposure to known carcinogens, namely asbestos, cigarettes and UV light.
Continue reading

May 20, 2012

Boston Mesothelioma Cases Could be Impacted by California Ruling

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers routinely keep a close watch on the pulse of what’s happening in other districts and even states with regard to similar lawsuits.

Often, Boston mesothelioma cases can mirror what’s happening around the country. It’s important to know which strategies have been especially effective, as well as what hasn’t worked so well. That also keeps us up-to-date on case law, which could have a direct impact on future litigation.

So we’ve been following several cases out of California, in which a group of former workers have been trying to sue their one-time employer. These cases are interesting because the employer never made anything containing asbestos, the fibers of which can be inhaled and cause serious illness in the form of various lung diseases and mesothelioma cancer.