Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog

In a recent interview with The New York Times, the director of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, David Michaels, was quoted as saying, “I’m the first to admit this is broken.”

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand he was referring to the agency’s record with regard to handling workplace health threats – specifically those longer-term, silent killers, such as asbestos.

The article’s primary focus was on an adhesive chemical called n-propyl bromide, or nPB, which is widely used today in certain manufacturing plants. However, numerous references were made to asbestos, and how the lessons of this material should not be forgotten. As companies seek materials and products that are affordable and effective, they should not lose sight of worker safety, as so many makers of asbestos-laden products have done over the years.

Part of the problem with asbestos is not even so much that it was being used, but that workers weren’t warned about the dangers associated with it. And they weren’t given proper materials, such as heavy duty respirators and protective suits, in order to shield themselves and their loved ones from harm.

Michaels was quick to admit that OSHA devotes a great deal of its funding and focus to respond to dangers that are clear and present. Things like workplace falls, trench collapses or electrocution.

But while the agency has drawn up some 24 different pages on regulations relating to stairs and ladders, there are only 16 new standards written in the last 40 years regarding workplace hazards like asbestos, arsenic and lead. While stairs and ladders do pose risk to a number of workers, particularly those in the construction industry, tens of thousands of U.S. workers handle toxic substances every single day – including asbestos, which as of yet is not banned in the U.S.

(You can read more about OSHA’s asbestos standards for the construction industry here.)

Federal statistics show that some 40,000 Americans die before their time every single year from exposure to toxic substances at work. That includes mesothelioma, which is a condition exclusively caused by exposure to asbestos, though it tends to remain latent for decades before a diagnosis is received. By then, most people have between six months to year to live.

By comparison, fewer than 4,000 workers die in mine collapses, explosions and other workplace accidents that grab headlines and government scrutiny.

Economists estimate that these longer-term illnesses cost the U.S. economy some $250 billion every year in lost productivity, medical expenses and disability payments.

And yet, asbestos manufacturers continue to deny liability and responsibility. They continue to attempt to foist the blame onto others, including the lawyers representing those workers who suffered as a result of such negligence and indifference to worker safety.
Continue reading

A mesothelioma lawsuit by a female plaintiff was recently moved to federal court, following her death two months ago.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys understand that the plaintiff alleged that her exposure came from numerous sources, including secondary exposure to her husband’s work clothing and materials from when he worked at two different power plants in the early to mid-1950s. Dust kicked up during a home renovation project was also blamed.

A number of the defendants who were previously named in this particular complaint have already settled.

Although the plaintiff had lived in Florida since 1970, where she died recently in Hospice soon after her mesothelioma diagnosis, the complaint was originally filed in West Virginia because that is where the asbestos exposure is alleged to have taken place.

Part of what is particularly interesting about this case is that it involves a female. This is not something we tend to hear a lot about, and yet women make up a significant portion of mesothelioma victims.

The fact is that while hundreds of thousands of industrial workers, military servicemen and tradesmen were being exposed daily to toxic asbestos fibers, so too where their wives and children. Even though they may not have worked directly with the fiber on a job site, asbestos covered the clothing that the men wore home. When the women began to wash those uniforms, they too were exposed – and it has proven no less deadly.

The other aspect of this case that makes it of special interest is that it highlights the hazards of home renovations. This is key because it’s a danger that continues today, even though asbestos isn’t nearly as widely used in products as it once was. Home renovation projects in structures that contain asbestos are a huge risk because while material left alone may pose little risk, asbestos that is disturbed becomes a major health hazard.

In fact, Massachusetts state law requires homeowners to know whether asbestos is in a structure that is going to be renovated. If present, it must be properly sealed or removed by an experienced abatement team.

Up until the 1970s and 1980s, homeowners might not have realized such extra precaution was necessary. Additionally, so many construction products continued to be made with the material that if the homeowner was carrying out a DIY project, he or she might have endured even more exposure to the deadly fibers.

For homeowners contemplating a renovation, the Environmental Protection Agency warns that you typically can’t tell whether a material contains asbestos just by looking at it. You may want to have a home inspection to be assured of no asbestos, prior to beginning the work or after your home has suffered some type of serious damage.

The EPA further recommends:

• Leave undamaged asbestos-containing materials alone;
• Keep activities to a minimum in areas with damaged material that could contain asbestos;
• Take every precaution to avoid asbestos-containing material;
• Have removal or repair conducted by those qualified and trained to do so;
• Don’t attempt to vacuum, sweep, dust, saw, scrape, sand, drill holes use abrasive brushes or pads to any asbestos material or material that could contain asbestos.

Continue reading

The Australian government has come up with a remarkable response to the ongoing, deadly public health hazard of asbestos exposure.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers know this is in such sharp contrast to what we are seeing here in the United States, where the substance remains legal to purchase and use in manufactured materials – though few agencies still chance it at this point.

According to The Sydney Morning Herald, the government has established an independent body to oversee workplace health, as well as public health and environmental safety with regard to asbestos. It is dubbed the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, and its offices will be fully operational by the beginning of July.

The head of the country’s Workplace Relations agency minced no words in addressing the impact asbestos has had both on Australian workers and the country as a whole. He called it the “worst industrial menace.”

The founding of this agency, he said, is a monumental step in that it puts Australia at the forefront of working to eliminate asbestos-related disease.

Why are we in America so far behind on this?

Recently in Ipswitch near Salem, local crews were tapped for an asbestos abatement project at a shuttered U.S. Air Force antenna-testing base. The facility, reportedly riddled with asbestos, was shuttered two years ago. The private owners of the land are seeking to have the on-site structure demolished.

In Australia, the government has said such abatement measures would be overseen by this central agency, to ensure uniformity and accountability.

How many times do we continue to see contractors or even individuals trying to cut cost corners by not properly conducting asbestos abatement, putting themselves and/or their workers and possibly even the public at risk for exposure? But the laws for asbestos abatement vary from state-to-state, so there is little uniformity with regard to penalties.

One of the first tasks the new federal asbestos agency in Australia intends to do is tackle the issue of illegal dumping and unsafe handling and disposal.

Globally, asbestos-related deaths are expected to peak sometime around 2020. But this is far from the end of this. Given the pervasiveness of this material, it’s not out of the question that children who are not yet born yet will die of asbestos-related diseases.

At least in Australia, it has already been banned for over a decade.

Considering that we have known definitively that mesothelioma is directly linked to asbestos exposure since 1964, this kind of non-response to the issue here in the states is truly abhorrent.

Not only that, but our lawmakers are actually trying to do more to muzzle the victims by pushing legislation that would make it tougher for mesothelioma victims to seek proper compensation.

Average onset of the disease is 64 years-old, though exposure typically happens decades before diagnosis. By the time the disease is identified, it is usually fatal within a matter of months or a few short years.

Mesothelioma is a fatal disease. But it’s also one that is entirely preventable.
Continue reading

At least 150 current and former employees of Long Island’s Nassau Coliseum have filed a notice of claim, indicating they were exposed to asbestos while working at the stadium and nothing was done to protect them.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys understand that the workers claiming unsafe exposure include carpenters, electricians and independent contractors.

This stadium has held a myriad of riveting events, from concerts to hockey and even the circus. It’s been a popular venue for decades. It’s also the home of the New York Islanders.

Yet throughout the walls, in the piping, throughout the electrical system – a deadly material was ever present.

It’s not clear whether the presence of that material posed a significant risk to patrons who attended events there. We do know that no amount of exposure to asbestos is considered safe, which means it’s possible that even inhaling a small amount many years ago could put a person at risk for lung impairments years later. It could also potentially develop into mesothelioma, a fatal form of cancer involving the lining around the lungs.

As it stands so far at least 75 of the former stadium employees have been diagnosed with mesothelioma from their exposure. Several more have lung cancer and many are permanently bound by oxygen tanks.

It’s possible that this particular case could be lumped into a class action lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs will be seeking between $500 million to $1 billion.

Attorneys for some of the plaintiffs in this case have said that they sent a number of samples from the stadium out to three different laboratories. All three labs returned results revealing dangerously high levels of asbestos.

Even those who have yet to be diagnosed with any cancer are, quite understandably, worried sick about the implications not only for themselves, but their families as well.

It’s not uncommon that older structures would use asbestos-laden material. The fact is, asbestos was everywhere throughout the 19th Century – in insulation, flooring, roofing, electrical systems, etc. What is troubling is that the owners of this stadium – in this case, the county – would have had a responsibility to know that their building contained asbestos and that workers would need to be aptly protected from the risk of direct exposure.

State investigators say they have launched an inquiry to determine the danger, if any, to the public. Meanwhile, events continue to be held there.

The U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration is also simultaneously conducting its own investigation as well.

County leaders have not denied in the past that the structure contains asbestos. In providing a response to the issue of litigation, the county executive underscored his previous pleas for renovation or demolition, saying it’s the oldest, un-renovated facility in the county.

As it stands, the arena is in trouble. The Islanders ice hockey team are leaving for Brooklyn next year, and the county is scrambling to find a new tenant – or at least some way to pay to keep the arena open. Originally, there was talk of it being downsized and renovated.

But now with the added cost of safe asbestos abatement during the would-be renovation, it might make more sense for the county to shutter the stadium altogether.
Continue reading

The chair of a subcommittee that had been slated to vote on the Further Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT) has thankfully tabled the matter pending further discussion.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys know that this law is the culmination of powerful corporate lobbyists doing everything in their power to try to cut off or mitigate the claims brought against them by those they hurt: dedicated former employees, their wives and children, military veterans and even the general public.

This is their effort to deflect the blame. The fact that a measure that would try so hard to suppress the full scope of their actions should be called an act of “transparency” designed to reduce fraud is an insult to all those who have been devastated by this terminal disease. To call this bill “anti-victim” would be the understatement of the year.

In light of the backlash the measure has received, House Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) has decided to postpone a vote on the legislation until members can hear directly from some of those who had been diagnosed with mesothelioma. The move came on the morning a vote was to proceed in the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.

The move was a bit surprising, given that the rest of the Republican majority members of the committee were insisting the vote be moved forward immediately. Bachus refused to cave in to his own party members’ demands.

It’s possible his motives were merely to save face, as numerous members of the opposing party had pointed out that the measure was supposed to be “for the victims,” and yet, not a single victim had been given the opportunity to testify prior to the vote.

In fact, at the most recent hearing prior to that one, Bachus reportedly highlighted the fact that at least two widows of mesothelioma victims were in the audience. Yet the subcommittee asked to hear from neither of those two women.

Additionally, three other widows had been specifically asked to attend the hearings, though none had been asked to testify. However, on the evening before the vote, when the widows learned the proceedings were rapidly progressing, they sent a rushed letter to the committee chair, chastising the committee members for overlooking them entirely.

They wrote feeling as if they were “invisible people.” The topic of discussion had centered on the very element that stole their husband’s lives and yet, everyone was given a chance to be heard except them. The women wrote that it was “starkly clear” that their experiences, heartache and and stories didn’t matter. It seemed as if their great losses didn’t matter.

Following this plea, they will be given the floor and the vote will be delayed another month. It’s troubling that even in spite of this appeal, so many House members were still eager to move on without hearing them. Before they cast their vote, those elected officials should ask themselves who they are really in that room to represent.
Continue reading

Manufacturers of asbestos-containing products are gunning hard for bankruptcy case records of other manufacturers – in an effort to bolster their own defense.

Our Boston mesothelioma plaintiff lawyers know that these firms will be scouring these records to find any minute detail that could help them deny responsibility for their role in knowingly exposing workers and the public to this toxic material.

The most recent case came out of Wilmington, Delaware. There, documents in a dozen large asbestos-related bankruptcy cases are going to be unsealed so that Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC will be able to peer into the records of other companies that have previously set up bankruptcy trusts.

Just to offer a bit of background:

Garlock is headquartered in New York, founded back in the late 1880s and was a leading manufacturer of sealing and gasket products – both of which contained asbestos. Those products were primarily used by the rail industry, and thousands of railway workers, mechanics and their family members were sickened by the disease.

Garlock has its own asbestos trust and filed for bankruptcy back in 2010, though the reorganization has not yet been confirmed.

Many companies liable for asbestos-related illnesses, such as mesothelioma, set up trusts as a way to remain solvent while still paying up on the flood of claims that began to roll in by the 1970s. Those claims are expected to peak in the next handful of years.

Garlock alone has paid nearly $1.4 billion in indemnity payments, while insurance has covered roughly $1 billion. As it stands, the firm still has another 10,000 mesothelioma claims pending against it.

And that’s what makes this ruling out of Delaware so significant. What Garlock is after is evidence that plaintiff making claims against it may have also sought payments from other asbestos trusts.

However, to do so is not fraudulent, nor is it illegal. The fact it, many people suffered exposure to asbestos from a variety of different sources. Yes, it might be difficult to pinpoint exactly which one caused the illness. Often, there’s a good chance they all did. But what it doesn’t do is make one company any less liable for the damage they inflicted.

The bankruptcy proceedings had been sealed by a bankruptcy court judge, but that ruling was later reversed by a federal judge in Delaware.

Of course, this ruling comes amid a huge push for what some lawmakers call “transparency” with regard to asbestos trusts and litigation.

This is despite the fact that a Government Accountability Office report last year made it clear that fraud among asbestos plaintiffs was not an issue. They are all sick or dying or have already passed. They and their families are looking for just compensation.

Efforts such as these by Garlock are not an effort for virtuous transparency that would somehow benefit the greater public good. It’s about Garlock making every attempt it can to push back and deny each and every claim that comes its way. They are doing all they can to refuse acceptance of their role in these grave injustices – and their responsibility to fix it.
Continue reading