Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog

November 22, 2016

Possible New Mesothelioma Treatment Discovered in Sea Cucumber

The sad reality is that when a doctor tells their patient that they have malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), they are also usually told that they will not live very long. While there are various treatment methods used by oncologists, they are often very invasive and even in the best cases will only prolong a patient’s life a relatively short period of time. They are often done at the expense of a patient’s already diminished quality of life.

There are a variety of reasons that there are so few effective means to treat malignant mesothelioma, but a lot of it has to do with a lack of research attributable to inadequate funding. This is because malignant mesothelioma is a relatively rare form of cancer. It is almost unheard of to occur without the patient being exposed to asbestos, and, even then, we generally see around 2,500 new cases each year in the United States. While this relative rarity is of no comfort to the victims and their families, the numbers are very small when compared to other forms of cancer. This means there is no profit in developing a treatment for mesothelioma for the big drug companies, so they do not spend a lot of money on developing a cure. Continue reading

November 17, 2016

Asbestos Exposure Lawsuit Settled for $80M

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

According to a recent news article from KCUR News, a class action lawsuit involving 7,500 employees at the old Jackson County Courthouse in Kansas was just settled in the amount of $80 million. This was a settlement on the eve of trial, as a jury had already been chosen and the case was set to open the following day.

The class action plaintiffs alleged that, while they were working in the old courthouse in 1983, the engineering company that was conducting major renovations caused asbestos dust to be spread throughout the entire building. Continue reading

November 13, 2016

Asbestos Exposure Linked to Arthritis

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

There is no question that exposure to asbestos fibers will often result in the development of malignant mesothelioma. This can involve malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) when the disease originally starts in a victim’s lungs, or it can involve malignant pericardial mesothelioma when it first occurs in a patient’s chest. If the cancer is first formed in the victim’s abdomen, the cancer is known as malignant peritoneal mesothelioma. However, it should be noted that wherever the cancer forms, it can quickly spread to other parts of the body and new tumors can develop.

Companies in the asbestos industry tried for years to hide this definitively proven medical fact, and were pretty successful, given that it is not well known by the general public. However, mesothelioma isn’t the only danger of asbestos exposure. Ine of the other medical conditions caused by asbestos is known as asbestosis.

Asbestosis occurs when the deadly asbestos fibers cause a scarring to the tissue inside a patient’s lungs. Symptoms of asbestosis are similar to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which is usually caused by years of smoking. Like COPD, asbestosis can be treated with medication. Patients are often required to carry an oxygen tank, which is cumbersome, but the alternative is potentially deadly. It’s a condition that requires prompt diagnosis and thorough treatment. Continue reading

November 11, 2016

Sen. Dick Durbin Asks EPA to Protect Americans from Asbestos

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

According to a recent article from E News Park Forest, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, (D-Ill.,) has called on the federal Environmental Protection Agency to give top priority on the list of chemicals it will be reviewing under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21^st Century Act. This act is a reform to the Chemical Substances Control Act of 1976.

The act was signed by President Barack Obama in June of this year. The law gives the EPA authority to regulate chemicals based upon how they affect vulnerable groups of people like small children, older Americans, pregnant women, and industrial workers who are often required to be around potentially hazardous chemicals on a frequent basis. Continue reading

November 7, 2016

In re: New York City Asbestos Litigation

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In In re: New York City Asbestos Litigation, a mesothelioma case from the New York Court of Appeals, court records indicate defendant sold valves to the U.S. Navy. These valves were designed to be used under high pressure and in high heat situations aboard naval ships. The valves themselves did not actually contain asbestos or any other hazardous materials.

However, these valves would not work properly under the expected conditions unless a gasket was used along with the valve as well as insulation and a packing material for the valve stem. These gaskets and insulation were made from asbestos, and the instructions that came with valves called for the use of this asbestos material. Continue reading

November 4, 2016

Asbestos Certification Company Owner Pleaded Guilty to Making Fake Certifications

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

There is no question that being an asbestos abatement professional is a hazardous job. Workers in this industry are at high risk of inhaling asbestos fibers that are too dangerous for anyone else to be around. For this reason, the industry is heavily regulated and employers must ensure workers have all the proper protection and training. This can be costly, but it’s necessary.

Unfortunately, as a recent incident revealed, even asbestos abatement firms sometimes cut corners to save costs, putting workers – and the public – at risk.

If a property owner suspects that there is asbestos on his or her property, the first thing that must be done is for a certified asbestos inspector to come and take samples. Once these samples are collected, they will be sent to a materials testing lab for microscopic analysis. The lab will not only determine if there are asbestos fibers present, but what kind of asbestos fibers they are, which is important, because some are even more dangerous than others. Continue reading

November 1, 2016

OSHA Levies Huge Fines for Asbestos Exposure

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Poor air quality has been a major concern for workers in many occupations for decades. In fact, the majority of mesothelioma cases stem from inadequate ventilation on job sites ranging from demolition to shipbuilding. Given what we know about the dangers of lacking ventilation – and the high damage awards companies have paid for failing to protect workers – one would think more companies would be taking it seriously. As it turns out, the need for vigilance remains.

According to a recent news article from Channel 3000, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has just levied nearly $250,000 in fines after the agency concluded workers on a nursing home renovation project were put in danger as a result of 13 safety violations. The agency also found that of these 13 safety violations, four of them were willful, and the remaining nine were classified as being serious in nature.

OSHA first became involved in the case when five workers became sick while on the job and were diagnosed with carbon monoxide exposure. Carbon monoxide exposure can lead to asphyxiation, which causes brain damage and death in a relatively short amount of time depending on the oxygen level in the room at the time of exposure. Continue reading

October 27, 2016

Update: Teaticket Elementary Asbestos Cleanup Now Up to $900,000

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

This past summer, school officials in Teaticket were told that workers installing new air conditioning vents discovered what they believed to be asbestos. After inspectors took samples and sent those samples for a microscopic analysis and confirmed there was asbestos, school officials knew they could not open on time this school year and held an emergency meeting with parents to discuss the alternatives.

In addition to making arrangements for the students to go to other elementary schools until Teaticket in Falmouth could be cleaned up, they worked on getting the proper permits and setting up an asbestos abatement plan. Town selectmen voted to release $300,000 in funds and an emergency amount appropriate to pay for the asbestos abatement. However, the actual cleanup cost is turning out to be a lot higher than they initially estimated. Continue reading

October 24, 2016

Report: Jury Awards $4.6 Million in Mesothelioma Case

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

According to a recent news article in the Pantagraph, a jury in Indiana has just awarded $4.6 million to a 73-year-old man who developed malignant mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos. He was exposed to asbestos over 50 years ago while working for a portable elevator company owned and operated by defendant.

If you have ever seen a tall building under construction, you may have noticed that the contractors will erect an elevator on the outside of the unfinished building so workers can travel up and down the structure. These elevators have also been featured in many action movies over the years. It is not the general contractor, but rather a portable elevator company that sets up these elevators for use during the construction project and then removes the portable elevator when the job is complete. These portable elevators have metal frames that workers must weld and properly fit with electrical wires as part of the set-up job. Continue reading

October 18, 2016

Florida Makes Causation More Difficult in Asbestos Claims

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

According to a recent article from the National Law Review, the state of Florida joined a group of states that are making it more difficult to prove causation in mesothelioma lawsuits. The first thing to discuss is what the term causation means in this context.

In any mesothelioma lawsuit, the primary claim is filed under a negligence theory. This is true even though we may be dealing a specific claim such as a failure to warn of a known danger. In any negligence case, there are four elements. The first element is whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The second element is whether the defendant breached a duty of care, assuming one was owed. The next element is known as causation and the fourth element is the amount of damages, if any, the defendant’s breach of a duty of due care caused the plaintiff. Continue reading