Articles Posted in Mesothelioma Case

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys understand that the companies responsible for producing and installing toxic asbestos often choose to spend their money fighting just claims from people diagnosed with mesothelioma. These corporate defendants will attempt to use the discovery process as a weapon to avoid taking responsibility for their negligence.

Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corp., an appeal argued before the California Court of Appeals, involved a plaintiff who worked at a tire factory from the late 1960s to the late 1970s. Slightly more than 30 years since he stopped working at the tire plant, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a deadly form of lung cancer most commonly associated with asbestos exposure.

The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against his former employer four months after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, claiming that he was exposed to asbestos fibers during the course of his employment. The plaintiff died after filing the lawsuit, and his estate converted the cases into a survivorship and wrongful death action.
Continue reading

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers know that our city’s once great maritime industry may be responsible for countless cases of asbestos exposure.

According to a recent article in the Louisiana Record, a former shipyard worker has filed a negligence action against multiple companies that allegedly caused his mesothelioma.

The plaintiff is suing shipping companies, ship builders, insurance companies, freight rail companies, shipping terminals, and other shipping industry-related companies that he claims contributed to his asbestos exposure.

He spent more than a decade working on ships in the Port of New Orleans beginning in the 1950s. He states in his mesothelioma lawsuit that he was never told of the extreme health risks of working in an asbestos-filled environment. The cargo he was handling was often asbestos material and the ships were also filled with asbestos. He is suing for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and other damages related to his illness.
Continue reading

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania was recently tasked with determining whether the decision by the state supreme court in Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC effectively barred expert testimony relying upon the “any exposure” theory of asbestos-related diseases.

In weighing the facts of Rost, R. v. Ford Motor Company, the court ultimately deemed them to be significantly different from those in Betz, and therefore affirmed an earlier verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Boston mesothelioma attorneys recognize this was an important ruling in so far as it underscored that a ban on the “any exposure” theory doesn’t necessarily mean that the testimony of any expert who espouses it should be discounted.
Continue reading

In the case of Williams Sr. et al. v. Placid Oil Co., recently weighed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, an asbestos manufacturer’s bankruptcy effectively derailed the plaintiff’s claim for damages.

In a split decision, the appellate court held that because the plaintiff was an “unknown creditor” a the time the company sought bankruptcy protection through discharge, the plaintiff was not entitled to direct notice of right to claim. What makes this matter even more frustrating is that even if the plaintiff had been made aware of the right to sue, it’s unclear what kind of case she might have had, as she did not even know she was sick until decades later.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers agree with the sole dissenting justice in this case, who reasoned that it is unconstitutional for the right to pursue a wrongful death claim to be discharged in a bankruptcy that occurred 15 years before the plaintiffs even knew she was sick. The dissenting justice lamented the fact that constitutional concerns were not raised by the plaintiff upon appeal; only issues regarding whether adequate notice was given prior to the bankruptcy discharge.
Continue reading

In civil matters, there are two primary types of compensation: Compensatory and punitive.

Both ultimately go to the plaintiff if he or she wins the case, but they serve very different purposes. Compensatory damages are those awarded to compensate the victim for the direct costs suffered – ie., medical bills, lost wages, etc. Punitive damages, meanwhile, are intended to punish the defendant for an egregious wrong.

In Boston mesothelioma lawsuits, the courts allow plaintiffs to seek punitive damages, but the threshold for awarding them is high. As one justice in the New York Supreme Court was recently quoted in an asbestos case, “Punitive damages should only be sought in the most serious cases to correct for the most egregious conduct.”
Continue reading

Rejecting all of the remaining defenses, a jury in Pennsylvania awarded $7.25 million to the survivors of a man who died after being diagnosed with mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure.

The victim, now deceased, was diagnosed with the aggressive cancer in January 2010, several decades after his exposure during the 1960s. He died six months later.

Boston mesothelioma lawsuit attorneys understand that these cases can be extremely difficult for patients and families. But this case reveals why it’s worth it to press forward. It’s about holding defendants accountable for using material they knew to be dangerous and for failing to warn workers and the public about those dangers. It’s also about ensuring that your family will be financially secure when you’re gone.
Continue reading

Asbestos litigation has been ongoing for years and has become contentious as more and more people fall ill because of exposure to asbestos and as more companies are driven into insolvency when they are unable to pay victims’ claims. Because of the ongoing legal controversies, some companies have taken a more aggressive approach to protecting their balance sheets and fighting asbestos plaintiffs seeking monetary damages.

As the Democrat & Chronicle Reports, one particular company is fighting to obtain information about asbestos plaintiffs to determine the extent of the company’s actual responsibility for damages. The fight spearheaded by this company is becoming more heated and others are joining in. The controversy underscores the importance of hiring an experienced Boston mesothelioma lawyer to ensure that you take the right legal steps to make a legitimate case so you right to damages does not come under attack.
Continue reading

When Garlock went bankrupt, a federal bankruptcy judge had to decide how much money the company should put into a trust fund to pay asbestos victims who had become ill as a result of exposure to toxic asbestos fibers. Manufacturers of asbestos products pay into these trust funds to ensure that people suffering from mesothelioma, asbestosis and other serious illnesses are able to obtain compensation for losses and damages.

Advocates for asbestos victims indicated that around $1.3 billion should be set aside for the trust to protect the victims. The judge, however, made a decision that some of the asbestos claims being made were not legitimate. As a result, the judge decided to order only $125 million be put aside by Garlock in the asbestos trust fund.
Continue reading

In most lawsuits based on defective products or personal injury, plaintiffs file individual claims, which become public knowledge. Asbestos cases are different. Many asbestos manufacturers have gone bankrupt because so many people were harmed by exposure and manufacturers had to compensate for serious health problems like asbestosis and mesothelioma. To ensure that victims harmed by asbestos could be compensated even if the company that made the product was bankrupt, asbestos trust funds were created.

The asbestos trust funds generally keep claims secret in order to protect the private health records of claimants. Rules set forth by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act restrict who a patient’s private data can be released to, and asbestos trust funds cannot and should not publicize details about the claims of victims harmed by asbestos.

The privacy rules and the special circumstances associated with recovering from an asbestos trust fund have, however, created an issue for health insurance companies. These health insurers are now suing to try to get information they need from asbestos trust funds. The outcome of the case could affect plaintiffs who have recovered money in asbestos cases, and it is important for every plaintiff making an asbestos claim to speak to their Boston mesothelioma lawyer about their health insurer’s rights to recover funds.
Continue reading