Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog

June 22, 2012

Thousands of Cancer Deaths Related to Asbestos Work

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.

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

June 17, 2012

Southborough Asbestos Violation Results in $36K Fine

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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.

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

June 15, 2012

EPA Asbestos Removal Grant Awarded to Massachusetts City

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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

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

June 14, 2012

Massachusetts Mesothelioma Lawyers Must Be Meticulous

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers are nothing if not meticulous.

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

June 10, 2012

Boston Mesothelioma Suits & Multiple Defendants

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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.

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

June 10, 2012

Betz v. Pneumo Abex llc. – A Blow to New England Mesothelioma Cases

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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.

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

June 8, 2012

New England Mesothelioma Appeals Verdict Questioned in Gallagher v. Nat’l Grid USA/Narragansett Elec.

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

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.

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

May 31, 2012

New England Mesothelioma Attorneys: Asbestos Exposure Downtown

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

New England mesothelioma cases are the direct result of negligent exposure to asbestos.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys know that for many victims, it isn’t possible for justice to ever fully be served because currently, those who have been diagnosed with this awful disease aren’t going to get better. No amount of money is going to cure them.

However, these judgments are often about principal and about making sure that the victims’ survivors are going to be cared for after they die – usually decades sooner than they would otherwise.

But despite all the knowledge we have about the dangers of asbestos exposure, some companies still don’t seem to care about following the basics for removal of this deadly substance.

Sure, it’s contained in a lot of old materials, but there are very strict guidelines for how it must be handled in order to prevent exposure not only to workers but the general public. The danger is that if ingested through inhalation, a person could be at serious risk for mesothelioma or other cancers.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection takes these violations fairly seriously – and companies and their contractors should take heed.

The most recent case was a contractor in Mansfield that was fined nearly $20,000 for violating asbestos removal rules while working at the Boston Common Garage.

According to a press release by the state DEP, the company, National Restorations Systems Inc., was reportedly hired to complete demolition and renovation at the Boston Common Garage. For those who may be familiar, that’s the downtown garage at 0 Charles Street.

The company is actually based out of Illinois, but has a regional office in Mansfield, so it was able to complete the work locally.

The work started back in September of 2010. Just a few days after work began, a public safety official stopped a trailer that was pulling away from the site. It was believed that the trailer contained material that had asbestos in it. Both the vehicle and the trailer were ordered back to the construction site. At that point, the materials within were tested for asbestos.

The results of those tests found that there was in fact asbestos in certain pipe coverings.

The company was cited not only for failure to notify the state’s DEP about the presence of asbestos, but also for failing to properly remove it, according to state law.

It is believed that the demolition was stopped in time to prevent any major exposure to the public in the heavily-populated downtown area.

The company’s president has refused comment to the press.

The DEP has said that half of that must be paid by the company immediately. If it remains in compliance with state and federal laws, however, the remaining balance will be suspended.
Continue reading

May 28, 2012

Boston Mesothelioma Lawyers: The Trouble With Trusts

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

As we’ve previously reported in our Boston Mesothelioma Lawyers’ Blog, more than 100 companies deemed responsible for lethal asbestos exposure have filed for bankruptcy and established trusts in order to pay out claimants and minimize litigation.

Boston mesothelioma lawyers recognize that there are pros and cons to this system.

On the one hand, there is the assurance that there will likely be money still left for those who will file Boston mesothelioma claims in the future. This is particularly important for a disease that remains dormant for decades.

On the flip side, those payments that are made are generally pennies on the dollar. They are nowhere near what you will get if you are successful in winning the case in court.

Now for most people, we know, the dollar amount isn’t always the point. Of course, you want to ensure that your family will be cared for. However, for many people, it’s often about the principal of the matter. These companies knew what they were doing was killing people. They knew it. And whether motivated by greed or some other force, they chose not to act. They chose not to change their practices. And they chose not to protect their workers and those in the general public.

Through bankruptcy filings and the establishment of a trust, these companies are allowed to remain operational. They are allowed to continue to make a profit.

Some people will see this as a plus. After all, how can they continue to make payments at all if they are shut down?

However, the fact that these trusts don’t guarantee a fair pay-out for those who file a claim is unfair, and should be addressed by our legal system.

We know that the first asbestos-related claims started trickling in in the 1960s. At the time, asbestos was still in regular use in the U.S. In fact, as late as 1973, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that some 800,000 metric tons of asbestos were consumed by the U.S. That figure has fallen by about 99.9 percent in the U.S. since then.

Also in the interim, about 100 asbestos trusts were established.

Now, all of these trusts value claims in a different way. Take for example the Johns Manville trust. It values a diagnosis of mesothelioma at around $350,000. Meanwhile, the Owens Corning trust values that same diagnosis at about $215,000.

This is likely far less than what you would get if you took the case to court. On the other hand, a court case can be much more time-consuming then filing a claim with an asbestos trust.

The John Manville trust says that in the nearly 25 years since it was founded, it has received nearly 880,000 claims (10 times more than what it had initially anticipated) and has paid out an estimated $4.2 billion. What’s more, filings are actually increasing as more and more people are learning their asbestos exposure has led to a mesothelioma diagnosis. In fact, filings have risen nearly 60 percent just in the first nine months of 2011, when compared to 2010.

The trusts’ assets, meanwhile, dropped by more than 10 percent.

So now, the trust has been paying out legitimate, approved claims for far less than what they are actually worth. So for example, if you are approved for a claim of $100,000, you’re likely to actually get about $7,500. That is pittance, and it’s likely not even enough to scratch the surface of your medical bills.

Other trusts are paying anywhere from 18 to 35 cents on the dollar.

In some cases, trusts have asked to suspend all current cases while the sort out how much they can actually afford to pay.

The point is, if you are diagnosed with mesothelioma, you do have options – and those should be discussed at length with an experienced Boston mesothelioma attorney.
Continue reading

May 24, 2012

In Re: Fed-Mogul Global, Inc. – Ruling on Asbestos Trusts

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Boston mesothelioma lawyers have been following the developments surrounding the case involving Fed-Mogul Global, Inc.

In Boston mesothelioma cases – and really, in mesothelioma cases all over the country – it’s been common over the last 20 years for businesses accused of exposure to asbestos to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

They do this because they otherwise wouldn’t be able to stay in business if they had to pay out even a handful of the past, current and future asbestos exposure claims. So with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, they can re-organize the business in such a way that they establish an asbestos trust that they regularly pay into.

People who have legitimate claims against that company for asbestos exposure and a subsequent illness, such as mesothelioma, can file a claim for a portion of that trust money.

The idea is to ensure that as many people as possible will be able to obtain compensation for dangerous exposure, rather than only a few complainants sucking the company dry and forcing it to close.

Many companies see handling these cases in bankruptcy court more favorable than having them wrung through the regular tort system, where they would likely be tied up in litigation for decades.

This was the track Fed-Mogul Global Inc. took. This company, the world’s largest manufacturer of automobile parts, as well as 150 of its affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy back in 2001. this was amid some 500,000 personal injury claims against the company for asbestos exposure. At the time, it had spent more than $350 million both defending against and settling asbestos exposure claims. And the claims showed no signs of stopping.

The establishment of a trust through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company asserted, would assure they could pay out as many as possible and still stay in business. As part of that bankruptcy, the company listed as an asset its right to recovery liability insurance on the claims. So in other words, plaintiffs seeking relief from the trust could also go after the insurance companies as well if the exposure happened while the company was covered by a particular insurer.

However, insurance companies bucked this, saying that the contract the insurers had with the company expressly stated that plan would violate the anti-assignment provisions in the contract. In other words, Fed-Mogul Global could not transfer policies or insurance rights without the consent of those insurance companies – which they obviously weren’t going to provide in this case.

So now, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Third Circuit, in a 68-page opinion, has sided with the insurance companies in stating that Fed-Mogul Global could not transfer its responsibility onto the insurance companies.

It’s important to note that while bankruptcy law is intended to permit well-intended, honest debtors to start afresh, it should not be a means for wrong-doers to obtain a safe haven. Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys understand that a bankruptcy does not absolve a company of responsibility for their past actions, and we will fight to gain you the compensation you rightly deserve.
Continue reading