Group Picture of the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Justia Lawyer Rating

Boston mesothelioma lawyers know that this disease is devastating. couple.jpg

Families are shattered when lives are abruptly ended – in most cases the victims those who had no idea that years before they had been exposed to asbestos, the primary root cause of the deadly mesothelioma cancer.

Now in civil court, these relatives have been known to sue the companies responsible when they suffered second-hand exposure. That is, their loved one came home from work with the asbestos fibers covering their clothing. When their family members hugged them or washed their laundry, they too became exposed.

However, it is this devastating loss of a loved one that is at the center of Sherrell VAnhooser v. Hennessy Industries Inc.
, heard in the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles, California. Although it’s out-of-state, this case deals with issues that are relevant to family members of mesothelioma sufferers in Boston. At issue is something called loss of consortium. This is simply legalese for saying that you were deprived of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries caused by the defendant.

In this case, the primary issue was whether a mesothelioma victim’s wife could sue for loss of consortium, even though the pair had not married until after the husband had been exposed.

The company had argued that the two would have had to have been married at the time of his exposure in order for her to sue for these damages. As you are probably aware, mesothelioma lies latent in one’s system for years – usually decades. So a person who was exposed to asbestos back in the 1960s may only just now be learning of their illness. Once it is diagnosed, the mesothelioma has reached such a point that is deadly within about a year.

So of course the company would want to minimize the damages it would have to pay by limiting the group of individuals who could sue them for loss of consortium.

However, the three-judge panel in the California appellate court ruled that the soon-to-be-widow in this case could in fact move forward on her claim to damages for loss of consortium. This sets a precedent that is encouraging in future case law, not only in California but across the country. In fact, the appellate court expressly stated that this was a recurring issue in a number of asbestos cases awaiting trial.

In this case, the husband served during the 1960s and 1970s in the U.S. Navy and then until 1990 as an auto mechanic – in both occupations, suffering from asbestos exposure from products made by Hennessy. The last time he reportedly had an encounter with these products was sometime between 1988 and 1990.

He then married his wife in late December 1991. His symptoms of mesothelioma did not begin to show up until late 2010. He was officially diagnosed with the disease in June of last year.

He has since sued numerous companies – Hennessy included – for his illness. With regard to the issue of loss of consortium, however, the company argued that the date of discovery and diagnosis of illness are irrelevant. What is important, they contended, was the date of exposure.

Not so, the appellate court decided, saying specifically:

“For purposes of creation of a loss of consortium cause of action, injury to a spouse in the latent disease context occurs when the illness or its symptoms are discovered or diagnosed, not at the time of the tortious act causing the harm.”
Continue reading

Men who worked as diesel mechanics in New England prior to the 1980s may be doubly at risk for developing mesothelioma, according to research that indicates diesel fuel contains a carcinogen that can be nearly as dangerous as asbestos exposure. carmotor.jpg

New England mesothelioma lawyers
understand that for diesel mechanics, the risk was then two-fold. Many would have been exposed to asbestos dust and fibers while on the job, breathing in the toxic compound. In many cases, those fibers also clung to their clothing, which they then wore home and unknowingly exposed their families. But now, it appears that diesel fumes, too, put them at risk.

Now for years, International Agency for Research on Cancer (also known as the IARC, a subsidiary of the World Health Organization), has maintained that diesel fuel was a likely carcinogen, meaning a compound that causes cancer. However, there had never been any definitive research indicating this was true.

However, new studies were recently published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Cancer Institute that both looked at more than 12,000 cave workers. These studies are known as the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study, or DEMS.

What those researchers discovered was there was a marked increase in lung cancer rates for workers who were exposed to underground diesel exhaust. In fact, those who had more exposure were more likely to die of lung cancer. In one study, researchers found the workers who suffered the highest exposure were three times as likely to die of cancer, while the other study found they were five times as likely.

Those within the mining industry say this research won’t hold any weight with regard to current practices, as the numbers examine worker exposure from the 1950s through the 1990s. During that time, workers often used dirtier and older equipment. Advances in technology, representatives said, mean mineworkers are no longer exposed to the same toxins, and since 2008, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has enforced rules on maximum exposure per worker.

And advances in working conditions have also improved for auto mechanics. However, that does nothing for those who were likely exposed to the cancer-causing compounds years ago. Given the long incubation period of mesothelioma – it is almost always decades before the cancer is diagnosed and is soon fatal upon discovery – we’re going to continue seeing mechanics who were exposed years ago just now becoming sickened.

While the National Resources Defense Council, as well as the Diesel Technology Forum both estimate that diesel emissions have been chopped by nearly 99 percent in newly-manufactured engines, there are still many, many older engines that are still in use – particularly in developing countries.

The studies didn’t indicate an exact level at which the diesel fumes are harmful, but scientists suggest that the risks shoot up even when there is moderate exposure.

Researchers also expressly stated that while their studies focused on mine workers, the risk is not limited to them. In fact the next group that is more likely at risk are the heavily-exposed occupational groups (such as diesel mechanics) followed by the general population.
Continue reading

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

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

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. blacknwhitehands.jpg

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

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. garbagebags.jpg

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

New cases of mesothelioma in Boston are diagnosed every single day. burns.jpg

Our Massachusetts mesothelioma lawyers understand that while many of these cases are the result of asbestos exposure that occurred over long periods of time many years ago and primarily in the industrial sector, an ongoing concern is the asbestos that is still inside the structures we use today.

Now there are very strict rules about how this material has to be disposed of. While very necessary, it’s not fast and it’s not cheap.

Thankfully, the Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees this whole process, is lending financial assistance to make sure this is accomplished – at least in one location.

In Worcester, about an hour west of Boston, state EPA officials have announced a $200,000 grant to help revitalize the downtown area. It was given directly to the Worcester Business Development Corporation, which is seeking to eradicate the asbestos in the older buildings located in the city’s center.

Without this extra funding, the project would have come to a screeching halt.

Use of asbestos in the construction and manufacturing fields has tapered off dramatically over the last 30 years or so. But in buildings that were erected prior to 1980, it’s still a huge issue.

Asbestos, which is a mineral that was used extensively during much of the 1900s for everything from insulation to fireproofing, was widely known to be toxic by the 1970s. Prior to that, there is evidence that a number of companies realized the toxicity and danger of it, and yet continued to use it anyway because it was cheap. That resulted in the illness of countless workers and consumers, and has led to a slew of mesothelioma litigation across the country.

Yet even given all we know of the dangers, some companies still flout the rules. Failure of contractors or companies to take proper action to remove the material can result in dangerous exposure levels to both workers and nearby residents. Ultimately, this may be the basis for a personal injury lawsuit. However, the full impact of that exposure may not be revealed for decades to come.

That’s part of what makes these cases so challenging. Think about it like a murder case gone cold. If you’ve ever watched any popular crime shows, you know that the first 48 hours are crucial to solving the case. Beyond that, your chances of catching the killer dwindles, and the case goes cold.

In mesothelioma cases, we know who the killer is, but we then tasked with proving it.

Other personal injury lawyers don’t have the same breadth of knowledge upon which to lay a solid foundation for these cases.

Because the EPA recognizes the severity of the risk of asbestos exposure, it’s laudable that they took decisive action in assisting this municipality in pushing forward with their revitalization project.

Now not every contractor or company is going to be handed help by the EPA when they start to renovate and discover asbestos. However, that does not negate their responsibility to do so properly.
Continue reading

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers are nothing if not meticulous. paperwork.jpg

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

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. fingerpoint.jpg

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

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.historicfacade.jpg

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

Massachusetts mesothelioma lawyers know that for many plaintiffs, their exposure to asbestos – and ultimately their mesothelioma diagnosis – were not the result of an isolated incident or even a singular job. hiding.jpg

That was the issue in Gallagher v. Nat’l Grid USA/Narragansett Electric, in which the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the decision handed down by the Workers’ Compensation Court Appellate Division.

Some have alleged that when plaintiffs claim more than one defendant in a mesothelioma case, that shows some type of fraud. The fact of the matter, however, is that numerous employers and manufacturers used and sold asbestos-laden products without regard for the cancer it would later cause to workers and consumers.

Such was the case here, and at issue was who should ultimately have to pay.

Dennis Gallagher lived in Rhode Island and that’s where this case was decided. However, the basic facts are still applicable here in Massachusetts.

Essentially what happened here is that the Workers’ Compensation Court had ordered one company to pay damages to Gallagher. An appellate court vacated that order, and instead laid blame on another employer. The state’s Supreme Court affirmed the latter, following petitions for writ of certiorari (or review) filed by both the company deemed subsequently responsible and Gallagher’s widow.

His case begins like so many others. He started his professional career as a welder, where he worked for a boat company in Connecticut between 1965 and 1971. He reportedly worked on submarines that were “loaded” with asbestos. Prior to his death, he testified that workers were constantly moving it in and out of his work space. The pipes at his work place were insulated with asbestos, which meant it then became airborne. This airborne exposure has been proven to cause mesothelioma.

Additionally during this time, the air filters were loaded with asbestos and he also was given asbestos gloves and asbestos blankets.

Then in the decade between 1974 and 1984, Gallagher was a supervisor, planner and welder at a boat yard in Rhode Island. During his time there, he reportedly worked with heater covers that were covered with asbestos. Additionally, he was given gloves made of asbestos to handle the hot metal, as well as blankets made of asbestos, which he used to cover himself or an area to insulate from fire or potential burns. At this location, some areas were ventilated, others not. He himself was never given a personal ventilator for use.

Then in 1984, Gallagher started working as a mechanic technician welder at a plant in Providence. There, asbestos covered the pipes inside the boilers. At least once annually, the asbestos was stripped, put into bags and either replaced or mixed and reused. These were done in the same area where he worked, and he sometimes helped out – without ventilation.

Then in 1995, another company was hired to come in and remove the asbestos. Three years later, another company, USGEN, purchased his company.

He was asked whether he believed he was exposed to the substance between then and 2004, when he was diagnosed. He said he believed so because old parts still remained in the structure.

While a workers’ compensation court awarded a judgment against USGEN for asbestos exposure, the appellate court vacated that ruling, saying that exposure to asbestos is unlikely to result in a mesothelioma diagnosis until many years later. The exposure that likely caused his cancer, it was reasoned, happened much earlier.

The Supreme Court confirmed this. While it’s encouraging from the standpoint that his widow was still compensated, we certainly maintain that the later asbestos exposure could have contributed to his disease and subsequent death.
Continue reading

Contact Information