Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog

October 11, 2012

Mesothelioma Claims Two Lives at University; Asbestos Concerns Raised

The recent mesothelioma deaths of two former employees who worked in the same building at a California college is raising alarm among both faculty and students regarding air quality and the possibility of asbestos contamination.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers continue to see these case occurring at schools, universities and educational facilities — in this case it’s reportedly taken the lives of two employees already and may ultimately be responsible for future cases of mesothelioma.

Asbestos is known to cause mesothelioma when the fibers are disturbed, become airborne and are subsequently inhaled. Mesothelioma, a rare, deadly form of cancer, develops years – usually decades – after exposure. Despite the arguments made by countless manufacturers and construction companies challenged in court, no amount of asbestos is safe, and a single exposure has the potential to be fatal.

According to local media reports. a 51-year-old administrative coordinator at Chico University’s political science department died in mid-September due to complications from lung cancer. Just a few months earlier, a 49-year-old sociology professor passed away after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Both employees had worked in the same building at the university, one just a floor above the other in the northwest corner of the facility.

Following the death of the second employee, an e-mail was distributed by one of the deans to other faculty members, saying there were concerns about the quality of the air in this particular building. That e-mail indicated that there was knowledge that the iron beams in the structure had been spray-coated with asbestos, which is in the fiber glass. The e-mail went on to say that if left alone, these fibers would not have been harmful. But there was concern that over the years, work to the heating, ventilation and air conditioning could have disturbed those fibers.

Hours after that e-mail went out, a meeting was held with the school’s Academic Affairs office, as well as the Department of Environmental Health & Safety. It’s not clear what information came out of that meeting, but another has been scheduled for this month.

A statement released by campus officials said that hundreds of thousands of structures built in the 20th century were constructed with asbestos or asbestos materials. School officials assured that no construction had taken place at the building recently that would have disturbed those fibers. However, as mentioned previously, a mesothelioma diagnosis wouldn’t have been made until several years after exposure. So if it was indeed exposure to asbestos at the school that made these workers sick, recent construction or renovation work wouldn’t have mattered. It would likely have occurred several years prior.

A state oversight agency that monitors asbestos in schools, government buildings and commercial structures indicates that nearly 50 buildings on that campus alone contain asbestos. Similar situations have been reported in schools and companies throughout Boston as well, where many structures were build in the era when asbestos was a commonly-used construction material.

For this reason, when someone is diagnosed with mesothelioma, determining the source of exposure can be tricky. But it is important to narrow it down so that you and your loved ones may receive compensation. We can help.
Continue reading

October 7, 2012

Rodarmel v. Pneuma: Mesothelioma Conspiracy Verdict Overturned

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Plaintiffs in the Rodarmel v. Pneumo case had alleged that numerous companies conspired to suppress important information regarding the health hazards of asbestos.

Now, a split panel of justices with the Illinois Fourth district Appellate Court has reversed a lower court’s nearly-$18 million verdict, which had sided with those plaintiffs.

Boston mesothelioma attorneys understand that the plaintiff may appeal to the state’s high court.

The appellate court ruled there was not sufficient evidence presented to prove that Pneumo-Abex, Honeywell International and other companies engaged in a conspiracy to hide the dangerous health effects of asbestos exposure from both workers and consumers.

A district court had ruled otherwise, and the fact that the appellate court was so divided on this issue shows that this was not a clear-cut victory for the defendants.

The original case stems from a lawsuit filed by a female former employee of a company that manufactured products made with asbestos. She worked there for two years in the late 1960s. During that time, she inhaled asbestos fibers that were manufactured by Honeywell, Abex and others.

Decades later, she was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma, and sought damages as a result.

Her lawsuit contends that corporate administrators at these companies all conspired to falsely assert that asbestos exposure was safe when they knew, in fact, it was not. She boosted her claims with evidence that Abex and eight other companies worked to conceal the results of an industry-funded study that showed the devastating effects of asbestos on mice; namely, that rampant cancers and malignant tumors were discovered after exposure.

Two years after the chief researcher of that study died, the laboratory sent the final report to Johns-Manville, one of the companies that was a primary supplier of asbestos to Abex (and one of nine companies that had funded the study).

But rather than acting on that study by pulling asbestos from its products, these companies instead had the study published – without any reference to the cancer.

This evidence resulted in a 2010 county court verdict to the plaintiff for $17.8 million, split between Honeywell and Abex.

The two companies appealed that decision, alleging there had been multiple legal deficiencies.

The justices for the majority ended up overturning the original decision on the basis that the lower court had erred in failing to grant a number of motions filed by the defense. The dissenting justices disagreed, issuing a five-page opinion to this effect.

The appellate justices based their decision on earlier case law established in McClure v. Owens, which found that in order for a plaintiff to prove that an agreement and subsequent act resulted in consequences worthy of legal action, they would need to prove that the act was done both knowingly and intentionally.

Still, the justices contended that the plaintiff in the current case presented more evidence than in McClure, but apparently not enough to meet that legal threshold.

This case further underscores the need for mesothelioma victims to turn to attorneys who have proven their skill and success in the courtroom.
Continue reading

October 2, 2012

Asbestos Firm’s Attorney Fraud Claims Fall Flat

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers have become familiar with a range of under-handed legal tactics used by asbestos defendants.

These involve obvious efforts to delay, skirt the primary issue or deny.

Even when these motives are so obviously transparent, they require the plaintiff’s attorney to be dexterous in eliminating such strategies.

The most recent attempt has been the fraud allegations that Garlock Seals Technologies has lobbed against a Texas mesothelioma law firm. The company’s claims are in fact so egregious that an organized group of personal injury attorneys are petitioning the judge in the case to allow them to intervene, stating such claims are not based in fact, but rather a calculated strategy as the company moves through the bankruptcy process.

The fact is, companies know that they have played a role in both employees and consumers contracting the aggressive and terminal cancer known as mesothelioma, which strikes those who have been exposed to asbestos. They also know that their negligence is likely to be very costly to them. It’s less expensive to drag the cases out for years and make spurious claims.

In this case, Garlock is alleging that the mesothelioma attorney has made repeatedly inconsistent claims about the origin of their client’s mesothelioma.

First, it’s worth noting that the prevalence of asbestos in a large variety of products often makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly which exposure resulted in illness. That’s why plaintiff attorneys will look extensively at a person’s work history and background, as it is often the result of some exposure during employment. But this is also why you will often see more than one defendant in these cases. Often, multiple companies may be responsible for exposure.

The personal injury lawyer organization contends that Garlock has made a host of similar claims since it entered bankruptcy proceedings in 2010. Garlock is one of 60 companies to be compelled to establish a bankruptcy trust as a result of mesothelioma litigation.

The fraud allegations, the group contends, have a clear bearing on the issues Garlock is litigating; namely, how much the company will have to set aside in its bankruptcy trust.

In the case in question, the plaintiff was a man who had worked at a company that sold asbestos-containing gaskets and other parts back in the 1960s. The plaintiff lawyers allege that the illness was caused by crocidolite, a rare kind of asbestos that is derived solely from Garlock products. However, Garlock claims the plaintiff attorneys were pursuing a similar claim against another company at the same time. It further contends it was roped into larger settlement than it would have paid had it been allowed to separate itself from the other defendants. (In Texas, juries are allowed to allocate a percentage of liabilities to third-parties.)

A judge has set the next hearing for the case for Oct. 11.
Continue reading

September 27, 2012

Important Victory for Military Mesothelioma Victim’s Widow

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The widow of a Navy veteran who died due to complications from mesothelioma has had her $2 million award for pain and suffering reinstated by a state supreme court.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers were pleased to hear the action taken by justices with the Virginia Supreme Court regarding the amount owed to the retired seaman’s widow.

The reason this case was so closely watched by mesothelioma attorneys is that the victim, who passed away before trial, had sued under general maritime law. He had alleged that he was exposed to asbestos fibers, dust and particles that were in products manufactured by John Crane Inc., as well as nearly two dozen other defendants.

When the plaintiff passed away, the lawsuit was refiled by the widow, as executor of her husband’s estate, as a wrongful death action.

The majority of the defendants chose to settle with her, rather than go to trial. But John Crane Inc. fought back.

Before the trial even started, JCI filed a motion in limine that would have excluded all evidence of nonpecuniary damages. These are damages that are outside the scope of monetary damages. In other words, evidence of pain and suffering, loss of consortium, etc., would not be allowed to be heard at trial.

The company’s motion was denied by the City of Newport News’ Circuit Court.

Eventually, JCI and the widow agreed to a jury instruction that would divide the cost of damages among Garlock, Crane Company and JCI. (The other two companies, which had settled prior to the trial, manufactured the asbestos-laden valves and gaskets.)

The jury awarded the widow approximately $6 million, with 50 percent of that to be paid by JCI. That verdict included $2 million for pain and suffering, as well as $2.5 million for the loss of her husband’s services and income, another $320,000 for medical expenses and about $8,000 for funeral expenses.

But after the verdict, the company appealed, contending that the widow’s own liability theory was based on the fact that her husband had been exposed to the asbestos fibers while on board Navy ships, which were traveling at sea or docked in foreign ports. As such, they contended she would have only been entitled to damages under the Death on the High Seas Act, which is spelled out in 46 U.S.C. Sec. 3031. This act says that when the death of an individual is caused by a wrongful act or default that occurs on the high seas, defined as 3 nautical miles form the U.S. shore, a personal representative of the family may bring civil action against the person or vessel responsible. Part of what that law also says is that this general maritime law limits an award to monetary (or pecuniary) damages.

The case made it all the way to the Virginia Supreme Court, where it vacated the $3 million award that JCI was responsible. However, the widow then asked for a re-order, and the judges agreed to reinstate $2 million of that for her pain and suffering.

The justices cited the Jones Act, which holds that a seaman (or his representative) may seek recovery of losses or pain and suffering sustained during his lifetime. So essentially, the widow was granted the award based on her husband’s pre-death pain and suffering.
Continue reading

September 25, 2012

Boston Code Inspections at Student Housing Turn Up Asbestos Violations

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

As some 70,000 Boston college students were preparing to move in to their new dorms or apartments in advance of the school year, Boston city code workers were busy conducting thousands of inspections.

What they found, according to The Boston Globe, was quite troubling.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that in addition to fines and abatement orders for everything from rodents to bed bugs to plumbing problems, landlords were also cited for asbestos issues.

Asbestos exposure, of course, is toxic when the fibers are disturbed and inhaled. A deadly cancer called mesothelioma is the result of this exposure, though it is not diagnosed until years, or decades, after the fact.

While it’s well-known that asbestos was widely used in countless products and building materials through the 1970s, it’s used less today. However, it’s not uncommon for older buildings to contain the material, in insulation or flooring or plumbing. It’s typically not going to pose any great health risk if it’s not disturbed. The key is to properly remove it, and Massachusetts law requires a licensed third party to do so.

However, it can be quite risky if the fibers are exposed.

In one case, an apartment in the Allston neighborhood, on Ashford Street, reportedly had exposed asbestos in and around the boiler room and also the laundry room. It was so deteriorated that hazmat crews and firefighters had to be called to the scene.

Of course, it’s encouraging that city officials are taking such a firm stance in pressing landlords to address these issues, which would likely otherwise be overlooked. On the other hand, it’s upsetting that such issues went on presumably undetected or unaddressed for several years prior.

Students who were set to move into the asbestos-laden building have been put up in a hotel room until the problem is mitigated.

In all, code inspectors issued 2,800 fines for sanitary code violations and 20 fines for housing code infractions between Aug. 31 and Sept. 3. Roughly two-thirds of the trash and sanitary code violations and about 50 percent of the housing citations were issued in student-saturated neighborhoods, namely Allston and Brighton.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino, who launched the 2012 Student Turnover Campaign, along with City Inspector Bryan Glascock, announced that this was just the beginning of increased enforcement efforts on the part of the city’s code enforcement office to halt violators and protect rental tenants, particularly students. The city’s Environmental Services Unit is also expected to be involved.

Some of those actions will be based on complaints, but others will involve more regular, routine inspections.

Other proactive measures announced by the mayor include:

Requiring rental properties to be inspected at least once every three years;
Organizing a registry of “chronic offender” landlords, or slumlords;
Requiring landlords who live out-of-state to have a local contact to represent them.

We applaud the city for taking these actions, and we hope it will prevent more people from being exposed to asbestos, thereby reducing the ongoing risk of mesothelioma.
Continue reading

September 19, 2012

Answering Your Mesothelioma Litigation Questions

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

A diagnosis of mesothelioma can leave you shocked, devastated and reeling with questions.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers know that as much as you don’t want to spend your latter years embroiled in a legal battle, you also want to ensure that your loved ones are going to be financially comfortable when you’re gone.

This is where we can help. We are committed to making the process as painless as possible, and to fighting aggressively to get you the compensation you deserve. We want you to understand what you can expect when you file a mesothelioma lawsuit.

First, if you’ve been diagnosed, you probably already understand what causes mesothelioma: exposure to asbestos. Into the 1970s and even the 1980s, it was a pretty widely used material that was used in a multitude of products and construction projects. Manufacturers liked it because it was cheap and it had a high resistance to heat. Those who worked in manufacturing, shipping, the auto industry and mining – as well as their families – are at particular risk of developing the disease, which doesn’t manifest itself until decades after exposure.

The real outrage of these cases is that companies were well aware of the dangers of using asbestos, and continued to use it anyway, mostly because it was inexpensive. This is why so many people are now seeking legal compensation. These are businesses that knew or should have known the risk to which they were exposing workers and consumers.

So one of the first steps after you receive a diagnosis is to identify the culprit(s). In many cases, given the prevalence of the material in a wide range of products and industries, there is usually more than one named defendant. Still, every case is different, so it just depends.

It’s difficult to say an exact timeline for your case because it all depends on how hard the company or companies fight back, as well as the kind of compensation you are seeking.

If you are awarded compensation, it will happen one of three ways:

1. A verdict. This would happen as the result of a trial. A jury will decide whether the defendants in the case are liable for your exposure, and therefore your disease. From there, the jury would decide the size of your award, which is likely to include both compensatory and punitive damages. This just means that the jury is not only compensating you for pain and suffering, they are punishing the defendant.

2. A settlement. This is how the majority of mesothelioma cases end. Most companies realize they may not have much legal standing to fight the allegations, and therefore will work to negotiate a settlement agreement. This amount may be less than what you would get from a trial, but it will be less arduous and time-consuming for you and your family. Of course, if a settlement is offered, it is always your choice whether to accept it or whether to press forward with a trial.

3. A bankruptcy trust. In the wake of many mesothelioma claims, a number of companies filed for bankruptcy. Some were not able to stay in business. The bankruptcy courts declared that those companies would have to set aside trusts in order to pay out current and future mesothelioma claimants. If you, with the help of your attorney, can prove that your exposure to asbestos was caused by one of these companies, you may be entitled to a pay-out from one or more of these trusts.
Continue reading

September 14, 2012

‘Drugstore Cowboy’ Dies of Mesothelioma in Prison

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers realize that James Fogle isn’t the most sympathetic of characters.

The 75-year-old, who was made famous for writing about and committing pharmacy robberies, recently died in prison – the latest in a long line of well-known individuals to succumb to the disease. His late-1980s novel, “Drugstore Cowboy,” about drug addicts who heisted pills from pharmacies, was made into a movie by filmmaker Daniel Yost. The film became a cult classic, and closely mirrored Fogle’s own life, which was checkered with stints in and out of prison.

In fact, Yost has indicated that prison work may have been the root cause of his illness. He had been in and out of institutions throughout his life. During an earlier stint, he began working with steel pipes and various machinery in the prison. Back in 1953, the American Water Works Association set regulations prohibiting the use of asbestos in cement pipes. After that, many facilities (including prisons) had them replaced due to the hazards. But that didn’t happen all at once, meaning that prisoners and prison staff alike were placed at risk for the fatal cancer.

At the time of Fogle’s death, he was serving a 16-year prison sentence for a 2010 pharmacy robbery.

We know that asbestos has been common in almost every older commercial structure, as well as many products. Little has been done to address the issue of asbestos in schools and office buildings, so it’s really not surprising that little has been done to take asbestos out of prisons. We understand some might say that it’s just as well, and that those who are serving time deserve whatever ills befall them while they’re there. But there are a few things to consider:

1. Most of those who are in prison have not been handed death sentences – which is what mesothelioma is.

2. The people who work in prisons are at equal risk of exposure as the prisoners.

Another recent example of asbestos exposure in prisons was in Kansas. It was so bad, in fact, that an audit was ordered by the state Department of Corrections to identify how many inmates and workers had been exposed during a massive asbestos abatement project at two of their facilities. The audit noted that the organic fiber was actually in dozens of the prisons throughout the state.

The agency had previously been fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to properly dispose of the material. It reportedly used untrained and ill-equipped prisoners in order to destroy and remove asbestos-laden flooring. It did not even provide these prisoners with respirators.The agency also failed to test other buildings, which likely contained asbestos, before tearing them down.

The only real positive for prisoners who are diagnosed with mesothelioma is that they are guaranteed health care by the state. However, that’s only for as long as they are incarcerated – and it doesn’t do anything for prison staffers.

Of course, this is not always top-notch health care. In some cases, they must wait weeks or months for an appointment. Plus, as mesothelioma is a terminal disease, there is not much doctors can do anyway.

While few may mourn Fogle’s death as the loss of a great contributor to society, it’s worth noting that if corrections departments knowingly expose either prisoners and prison workers to asbestos, they should be held accountable.
Continue reading

September 11, 2012

Judge Rules Defendant Can’t Conduct Mesothelioma Plaintiff Autopsy

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Mesothelioma patients can claim a victory for dignity, after a ruling in Missouri that is likely to have nationwide implications.

As our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand it, lawyers for one of the defendants, accused of fatal asbestos exposure, requested that they be allowed to conduct an autopsy on the plaintiff, who was nearing the end of his battle with the terminal illness.

Reichhold, a manufacturing firm, asked the judge to allow them to collect a 5 gram sample of the plaintiff’s lung tissue in order to aid in their defense.

Now, it’s not that this request surprises us from the perspective of the lengths defendants will go in order to wriggle their way out of responsibility. In fact, we’ve become quite familiar with a number of such tactics, including excessive delays and motion filing and even repeated requests for venue changes. Delaying is often popular because the defendants know their accusers are living on borrowed time.

Mesothelioma is caused by exposure to airborne asbestos fibers. Although it’s not a product that’s widely used in the U.S. today, it was used in a large variety of products and manufacturing materials through the 1970s. That means those who are now retired from the manufacturing or construction industries face the biggest risks today, as the disease takes many years to manifest itself.

In this case, Reichhold made its request in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court, where the case was being heard. The company argued it was quite possible the plaintiff could die before trial. Still, it didn’t specify why exactly it wanted the sample, or what the company hoped it would prove. The mesothelioma diagnosis had already been confirmed at that point. To our knowledge, there are no biological indicators that would link the type of mesothelioma (pleural or peritoneal) to a specific company. In other words, medical examiners performing an autopsy wouldn’t find a “Reichhold” stamp on the plaintiff’s lung tissue.

These cases are often decided based on historical data. Of course, the diagnosis itself is important. But from there, mesothelioma attorneys will explore how the defendant used asbestos, what level of exposure it caused to its workers or consumers, and at what point supervisors became aware of the dangers.

In this case, the plaintiff’s attorneys argued that there was no legal precedent as to require a grieving family to allow remains of their loved one to be tested by a legal foe and possibly used against them in court. Plus, the plaintiff wasn’t even deceased yet.

While the defendant had said it would be a biopsy, not an autopsy, the fact that it would be conducted after death, the judge ruled, still made it an autopsy – and he sided with the plaintiff.

Attorneys for Reichhold had also tried to argue that they were using “safe” asbestos, and that there wasn’t really any asbestos at all in the plaintiff’s lungs. Here’s the reality, though: there is no such thing as “safe asbestos.” It all has been known to cause mesothelioma.

With this ruling, the family now has peace of mind that it won’t be subjected to further harm by a company that sought to violate the remains of their loved one.
Continue reading

September 8, 2012

Environmental Asbestos Mess in Framingham

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Officials in Framingham are embroiled in an environmental debacle involving alleged illegal dumping, an apparently dishonest contractor and a family that is stuck with a pile of asbestos in their back yard and a $900,000 bill to remove it.

Boston mesothelioma attorneys understand that the city has filed suit against the contractor, while the Department of Environmental Protection is billing the family, which is debating legal action against the city.

Quite frankly: It’s a mess.

And the fact of the matter is, the asbestos sitting in a heap of soil at the edge of the Milford property creates a potential health hazard, as asbestos that is disturbed puts everyone nearby at risk for developing mesothelioma – a slow-developing but deadly cancer of the internal organs, caused by asbestos exposure.

Those who are now battling mesothelioma were on average exposed 30 to 40 years ago, with the disease not manifesting itself until much later. Despite all our advances in education, advocacy and litigation, cases like this sadly ensure people may be getting sick for many more years to come.

Here’s what we know of this case, as reported by local media:

Noisy, late-night dumping two summers ago drew the ire of neighbors in the area. Curious, one night they ended up following the trucks back to the New York Avenue in the Framingham Technology Park. They snapped a few photographs of the scene, and contacted the DEP.

The DEP, in turn, secured a warrant and found that within the debris pile on the family’s property were pipes containing asbestos.

The company that had been dumping the fill, SB General Contracting, was reportedly employed by the town, having been hired to replace water pipes and the old concrete sewer system.

The DEP issued a $900,000 bill to the family to clean up the debris. Although there is no indication they allowed the trucks on their property, the DEP contends that they are responsible as it is now on their land.

The Rowe’s then wrote to the town, demanding that they take action to properly remove the material. Also, the DEP is looking into whether town officials may have violated the Solid Waste Management Act, as well as the Clean Air Act.

In turn, Framingham officials have filed suit against the contractor, claiming they are responsible for the clean-up effort, and are suing the company for about $950,000. They say taxpayers shouldn’t have to be on the hook for what happened, and this amount should cover removal expenses plus attorney fees.

But the contractor, meanwhile, says the city wouldn’t pay them when crews ran into trouble with underground rock and other impediments to the project. They say both sides had reached a $162,000 settlement that would have allowed them to properly complete the work, but the town never paid up.

While all of this is being sorted out, the DEP has issued an order to cover up the pile with plastic.
Continue reading

September 6, 2012

Vehicles Recalled Due to Asbestos in Parts

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

A Chinese car manufacturer has issued a broad recall of more than 40,000 vehicles in six countries after Australian customs officials discovered certain components contained asbestos.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers are grateful that none of the vehicles in question were sold in the U.S.

However, here’s the scary truth: The only reason Australian officials caught the problem was because asbestos has been legally banned from that country. It’s not allowed to be manufactured, produced, imported or exported there.

By contrast, the U.S. has no such prohibition, and in fact, as we recently reported in our Aug. 23rd blog entry, asbestos imports in the U.S. have actually increased in recent years, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Asbestos is an organic fiber that when disturbed and airborne can be deadly to humans in the form of mesothelioma cancer.

The company in question here, Chery Automobile Co., is the largest car exporter in China. The recall involves some 23,000 vehicles in Australia and another 19,000 or so vehicles in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Singapore.

The parts in question were engines and exhaust gaskets. Australian authorities’ discovery prompted the initial recall of the Tiggo sport utility vehicle model and the A3 compact cars. Within a few weeks, the recall was expanded to the other countries as well.

The other reason why this is so troubling is that not only does China have particularly lax standards with regard to exports that may contain asbestos, lead or other harmful materials, but we are one of their top customers – and the market is growing.

According to recent business reports, the company sold some 160,000 vehicles in 2011. That represents a nearly 75 percent increase over the 2010 numbers. And, when we analyze the numbers for the first six months of the year, with the company having sold nearly 95,000 vehicles already, they are on track to surpass last year’s total.

While the company voluntarily issued the recall, representatives issued a statement placing the blame squarely on a supplier for swapping materials, unbeknownst to the parent company.

Representatives have gone on to say that any future recalls will center around the laws and regulations of the country in which they are selling. But again: The U.S. hasn’t banned asbestos. So while it’s not widely used anymore, we are by no means immune to exposure.
Continue reading