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

by

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys know that anytime we take on a case, there’s the real and tragic possibility that our client may not survive the proceedings. gavel.jpg

Generally, that is the harsh reality of a Boston mesothelioma diagnosis – once it’s identified, patients only have a few months to maybe a year or so left. And the fact is, litigation takes time. That leaves devastated survivors to carry on with the case and our Boston mesothelioma attorneys are dedicated to battling their case every step of the way.

What we find morally reprehensible, however, are the tactics often used by defendants in these cases – the companies who sought to cover up their continued use of asbestos products, even after they became aware of the immense danger. They covered it up because asbestos was cheaper and because they didn’t want to be sued.

Continue reading

by

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys are reticent to raise the hopes of individuals suffering from this devastatingly swift diseaseas it has been notoriously unresponsive to treatment. labwork.jpg

On the other hand, when there is potentially encouraging news for Boston mesothelioma patients, we want them to be aware of it. And it’s in that spirit that we wanted to share with you the latest news out of Australia: The possibility of increased survival rates through a certain kind of radiation treatment.

Here’s what we’ve been able to cull from the various news reports regarding this latest treatment:

Doctors and researchers in Melbourne conducted a small study, involving some 45 patients between the ages of 45 and 74.

Those patients were given a high dose of radiation treatment, called hemithoracic radiation. This involves “intensity modulated radiotherapy,” (IMRT) and something known as 3D conformal radiation. These are highly technical procedures, but the first works by allowing doctors to deliver a high radiation dose to a certain target – say, a tumor in the lungs – without damaging the tissue around it. The 3D conformal radiation is similar, but it works by allowing the radiation to match the shape of the tumor and target the cancerous cells. That means that higher doses of radiation can be delivered specifically to the tumor, reducing the risk of harm to the good tissue.

The results weren’t groundbreaking, but they were encouraging.

Of those 45 patients, about 80 percent were already in the advanced stages of mesothelioma. Two had previously had either surgery or chemotherapy.

The study found that the median survival rate was 12.4 months from the time treatment began. That may not sound like much at all, but that’s compared to patients who survived 7.9 months using other, more conventional forms of treatment.

This is significant because it was previously believed that mesothelioma, unlike other forms of cancer, was totally unresponsive to radiation treatments unless the levels were so high as to be fatally toxic.

Researchers here though have said there were no fatal or life-threatening side effects from the treatment itself.

Mesothelioma has historically been extremely difficult to diagnose and to treat. Usually, by the time someone is given a diagnosis, they have less than a year to live. In almost all cases, mesothelioma is caused by swallowing or inhaling dust from asbestos. That dust becomes embedded in the lining of the lungs, stomach and other vital organs, though problems aren’t usually detected until many years or decades after the initial exposure.

The research should not end here – this should only be considered the beginning. This is a relatively small study, compared to the estimated 3,000 Americans who are diagnosed with the disease every year. But it’s one step in the right direction.

Of course, it doesn’t release those responsible for asbestos exposure from liability, so it’s important if you are diagnosed to contact an experienced Boston mesothelioma attorney.
Continue reading

by

When you are involved in mesothelioma litigation in Boston, you probably give your attorney the authority to make the tactical trial decisions of your case. This is why it is so critical to have an experienced Boston injury attorney advocating for you.
1327707_old_water_valve.jpg
Recently the Supreme Court of New York decided the crucial question of whether there was a dispute in the material facts of the case. McDonald v. A.C.&S., Inc. et al. began because James McDonald was working in the heating, ventilation and air conditional (HVAC) business throughout the 1970s. McDonald was a sheet metal worker in his family business where he was responsible for overseeing a variety of other workers. McDonald never directly worked with any products that contained asbestos, but he did work in close proximity to workers who were repairing, replacing and removing valves that contained asbestos. These valves were created by Crane Company (Crane or defendant), an unnamed defendant in this case.

McDonald was diagnosed with mesothelioma and died in 2000. He left his wife, who acted as the representative of McDonald’s estate (plaintiff) for this lawsuit. Plaintiff brought a personal injury and wrongful death action against Crane arguing that McDonald got mesothelioma because of the asbestos in the Crane valves.

Plaintiff proved that Crane was in the business of manufacturing, supplying and distributing valves that contained asbestos. Crane admitted that they did produce two types of valves during the 1970s, one of which contained asbestos. Crane acknowledged that only the insulated valves had asbestos in the gaskets, but it established that the non- insulated valves did not have asbestos. Additionally, defendant argued that because it was hard to distinguish between these two types of valves, there was no way to prove that McDonald actually got mesothelioma from a Crane valve. For this reason, Crane entered a motion for summary judgment.

When a party moves for summary judgment they are basically telling the judge that there is no material issue of fact that needs to be determined. The court explains that in order for a case to go to a jury to determine liability, there must be enough proof that a dispute actually exists.

The plaintiff provided the testimony of a former co-worker of McDonalds’ to prove that McDonald was exposed to the asbestos from the Crane valves, and that this exposure caused him to get mesothelioma and die. Thayer testified that the asbestos fibers were released around McDonald and the asbestos came from the Crane valves. Additionally, Thayer testified that for two months he and McDonald worked in the boiler room of a psychiatric hospital which contained Crane valves.

Defendants argued that the witness’ testimony was mere speculation and there was no substantiated proof that Crane should be held liable. The court found that Thayer had sufficiently identified the Crane valves in the psychiatric hospital; therefore, there was a sufficient evidence to show a dispute over the material facts of the case.

Thus, the court denied Crane’s motion for summary and the case will continue on to a jury trial.
Continue reading

by

Irresponsible actions from an as-yet unknown source have put children at risk for asbestos exposure in Boston. sidewalkchalk.jpg

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys are sickened by the news that someone has not once but twice dumped this deadly material in trash bins behind Thorpe Elementary School.

This incidents happened last month, and officials are still trying to find out who may be responsible.

Because of the inherent danger of asbestos, its removal is strictly regulated by the federal government’s Department of Environmental Protection. Investigators there believe the dumping was done by a contractor who wanted to save money, as companies are responsible for hiring a licensed asbestos removal firm anytime they come in contact with the material. To dump this material anywhere would be bad enough. However, to do so at an elementary school is reprehensible.

News of this dumping comes as schools in Massachusetts are investing an estimated $9 million to remove asbestos from older buildings that were constructed with the naturally occurring mineral. Asbestos has been linked to cancer – namely, mesothelioma – as well as lung and heart disease.

The asbestos, which had been dumped in the same location twice in one week. School officials said it was discovered by a janitor, and the school had to pay to purchase new trash bins and have the other ones disposed of. The district said at no time were students at risk, although it’s not clear how they can be certain, considering asbestos can easily go airborne, especially when disturbed. It doesn’t seem there is any guarantee that no one else suffered potential exposure.

Another scary incident involving asbestos and school children was recently reported in New York. According to local news stations, children near one junior high school found pieces of asbestos, which they mistook for sidewalk chalk. Parents, too, though it was sidewalk chalk and had no idea their children had been playing with the deadly material. They are horrified – and rightly so, as the effects of asbestos exposure may lie dormant for decades before it is discovered. Typically, exposure involves inhalation of the fibers, which in turn scars the thin membranes surrounding major organs, including the heart and lungs. By the time asbestos-related diseases are discovered, patients are often given about one year to live.

In trying to determine how it happened, school officials are pointing to a recent vandalism incident. They say there was a break-in at the old school building in which hot water pipes were stolen. In the process, asbestos material was left all over the ground and on a nearby sidewalk. The incident prompted school and city officials to shut down half a block while a company has been hired to to clean up the mess on both the sidewalk and inside the school.

Some scientists say that a one or two-time exposure won’t likely cause long-term damage, though there is no way to say that for sure. While there is no known cure for asbestos exposure, pediatricians for the children were advised to thoroughly wash or throw out the clothes they were wearing and undergo a complete check-up.
Continue reading

by

A third wave of mesothelioma cases are being discovered from asbestos exposure in Boston and throughout the country. amigos.jpg

Most of the cases our Boston mesothelioma attorneys handle are from individuals who worked closely with asbestos materials many years or decades ago. These were people who worked in mines or in manufacturing or construction.

Increasingly, however, more younger patients are being identified as “third wave mesothelioma patients,” or those who were exposed as bystanders.

Continue reading

by

Those who have suffered Boston asbestos exposure have not only increased their risk for mesothelioma, but also heart disease and stroke, according to a new British study. hearttree.jpg

Our Boston asbestos exposure attorneys know that the health risks when one comes into contact with this material are deadly. The problem is it was used in such a wide array of products for so long – even after companies learned of the health risks – that many people even today continue to come into contact with it.

Those who have the greatest exposure risk are workers in the shipbuilding, railroad, automotive and construction industries. However, because it can easily go airborne, exposure is by no means limited to these individuals. Also, the material has been known to have been widely used in schools, public buildings and homes. Those in older structures are particularly at risk.

It’s long been known that those who are exposed to asbestos are at increased risk of lung diseases and cancers, including mesothelioma. Generally, the incubation period for these diseases – that is, the time it takes for you to know about it – is between 10 and 40 years.

Now, here’s what the British researchers discovered:

They looked at the health histories of nearly 100,000 individuals who worked in the British asbestos industry between the early 1970s and 2005 – more than 20 years. Of those about 15,000 have died.

Of those 15,500 deaths, nearly 4,200 were the result of heart disease and more than 1,000 were from a stroke. This was especially true for women.

For male asbestos workers, it was learned they were more than 40 percent more likely than someone in the general population to die of a stroke. They were also 60 percent more likely to die of heart disease – and this was even when the statistics were controlled for cigarette smoking.

For women who worked with asbestos, those numbers were even more astonishing. They were 100 percent more likely to die of a stroke and 90 percent more likely to die of heart disease.

Keep in mind, male and female workers usually had somewhat different roles in handling the asbestos. The men were usually hired to remove asbestos, while the females had worked in industries that manufactured materials that contained asbestos.

The research was headed by Britain’s Health and Safety Laboratory, and the results are spelled out in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

The reason why these findings are significant is that doctors had long believed that Boston asbestos exposure was tied to cardiovascular disease. But until now, they never had any solid proof.

This is also the first study that specifically looked at the link between heart disease and asbestos exposure that specifically controlled for smoking. About half the women in the study were in fact smokers.

This is another reason mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases are difficult to diagnose – they may masquerade as another disease.

If you are undergoing treatment for a disease you believe may be related to asbestos exposure – particularly mesothelioma – contact an experienced Boston mesothelioma attorney today.
Continue reading

by

Boston mesothelioma patients who suffered asbestos exposure from insulation products made by Quigley Co. Inc. can sue drug maker Pfizer, which had purchased the company back in 1968.redbloodcells.jpg

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys understand this is a case that has been dragging on for more than three decades, and it’s encouraging that a federal court has taken a stand on the side of consumer and patients’ rights.

The case is called Court rules Pfizer can face some asbestos suits, By Ben Berkowitz, Reuters

Continue reading

by

In every Boston personal injury case, determining who the responsible parties are is critical. But what is equally important is determining which law governed the at-fault party’s behavior.

With an experience Boston personal injury attorney, you can feel the peace of mind that comes with knowing you have a representative fighting for you.
old woman.jpg
Feinberg v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. is a case that addresses the various intricacies involved in personal injury actions. Feinberg (“plaintiff”) used Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder made by Colgate-Palmolive’s (“defendant”) daily for thirty years. Defendants used asbestos in the production of this talcum powder. There was no dispute over the lack of warnings or labels on the powder specifying there was asbestos in the powder. Plaintiff was thus exposed to asbestos daily for thirty years and was later diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s failed to warn her of the toxicity of the asbestos in the talcum powder. On the other hand, Defendant looked to statute in their claim that they were protected because their obligation to warn was confused between silent federal statute and state statute which provides for a statute of limitations for claims. Because of this, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.

The court here explains that this case centers on the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (“FDCA”). The FDCA was established in 1938 to regulate the misbranding of food, drugs and cosmetics. Subsequently, this act was amended in 1997 to include a preemption provision (“Preemption Clause”) in regards to the labeling and packaging of cosmetics. See 21 U.S.C.A §379s(a). This clause was created to address the growing confusion over state and federal regulation of cosmetics.

Preemption is a legal principal based on the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution. Basically, this principal guides states in the instruction that where federal and state law conflict on the same issue the federal law trumps the state law. States are not to adopt any state law that conflicts with a federal law.

The Preemption Clause to the FDCA provides that the FDCA is the law that governs the labeling and packaging of cosmetics. Therefore, states are prohibited from adopting any requirements that are different from those already codified federally.

It is important to understand the legislative process when interpreting statute. In the U.S. Constitution the legislative branch is given the obligation of creating statutes. Because there are so many areas to regulate, the legislature often creates administrative agencies to focus on statutes surrounding specific areas of law. In creating legislation, the individual agencies are responsible for certain things throughout the statutory construction process. This process is called rulemaking. When creating new legislation, the agency must provide a notice and comment period where the public is given access to the proposed legislation and they are allowed to provide their feedback. In order for this statute to become binding on the public, this rulemaking process must be completed and remain a public record.

In this case, the Food and Drug Administration was the administrative agency responsible for the FDCA and the Preemption Clause. Because the FDA maintained the records of this notice and comment period, the court was able to use these records to establish the statutory intent and application.

The court explains that when dealing with preemption and applicability of statute, it is important to determine what the statute controls. Thus, the issue of retroactivity was next discussed. In order to protect individuals from violation of their rights, a new adopted statute is applied from the date of adoption forward. Basically, unless the statute specifies, the law cannot be applied backwards in time to things that occurred before the statute adoption. Where the statute specifies that a law should be applied to instances that occurred before the adaptation of the law this is called express preemption.

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that arises from exposure to asbestos. Therefore, the time of first exposure is often significantly earlier than the time of diagnosis. In Feinberg, the plaintiff was first exposed to this asbestos in her talcum powder forty five years before the Presumption Clause was adopted. But the plaintiff was not diagnosed with mesothelioma until after the Preemption Clause was adopted. Thus the question became whether the previous New York state law applied to the defendant’s duty to warn or the federal law created later.

The court in this case rejected the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Preemption Clause was not applicable to this case because of the “genesis” of the plaintiff’s injuries. Therefore, the defendants did owe the plaintiff a duty of care which must be examined through an appropriate trial.

There are so many statues and knowing which responsibilities an at-fault party has can be very confusing. Because of this, you need an attorney helping you get the compensation you deserve.
Continue reading

by

Not only were a property owner and contractor reportedly complicit in a Boston asbestos exposure case that may have imperiled young children, one of them is now also accused of witness intimidation.handcuffsonhands.jpg

Our Boston asbestos exposure attorneys are appalled at the news coming out of Dedham from the state attorney general’s office.

The fact is, asbestos is the cause of mesothelioma, a dangerous cancer that can take years to detect. Once it’s diagnosed, it’s a death sentence and patients are given about a year to live. The diagnosis is devastating to families, who are often blindsided and had no idea, as the exposure may have happened years earlier.

According to a recent press release, the property owner, 58, is from Weston and the heating and cooling contractor, 41, is from Plainville. Each of the two were arraigned on criminal charges – four altogether – for violating the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the two are accused of failing to notify the state’s department of environmental protection about the presence and removal of the asbestos at a residence where a family with small children lived. They also didn’t hire a company specializing in safe asbestos removal.

The state’s Department of Labor Standards is very strict on its requirement that whenever an individual or company is removing asbestos, the work has to be completed by a licensed contractor, trained in asbestos removal. That removal has to follow very specific standards in terms of how the materials are handled, how they must be stored and how they should be disposed of. Throughout this whole process, the department of environmental protection needs to be informed – and its the contractor’s responsibility to do that.

Court records indicate that in December of 2010, the property owner hired the heating and cooling contractor – who was not licensed to perform asbestos removal – to replace a boiler in the basement of the residence. It’s alleged that the contractor did not seal off the basement when he did this work, which would have helped to ensure that exposure to that family and their small children would have at least been limited.

It’s not clear exactly how environmental authorities learned of this alleged violation, but once they did, they immediately conducted an investigation, with the assistance of the Massachusetts Environmental Strike Force – a multi-agency coalition that works together to investigate and prosecute individuals who have committed crimes that potentially threaten the land, air or water or could otherwise pose a significant health risk.

When the contractor learned he was being investigated for potential criminal violations, authorities say he went to the home where he did the work and threatened the tenants – the ones with the small children who had been exposed to asbestos – saying he would inflict some harm if they testified against him.

As of right now, both defendants have pleaded not guilty in the case, and have been released on their own recognizance, although the contractor was ordered to have no contact whatsoever with the tenant/witness.

A pretrial conference for the pair is expected to be held the first of May.
Continue reading

by

For their role in a Boston asbestos exposure case, four companies could be required to pony up an estimated $80,000 in penalties. lungs.jpg

As our Boston asbestos exposure attorneys understand it, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has announced that the companies were each involved in work being conducted at the Lowell Sun Newspaper near Kearney Square. They are accused of failing to properly remove and dispose of asbestos on the property.

Coakley released a statement saying her office would aggressively go after those who violate the laws regarding asbestos removal, as such regulations are laid out by numerous entities, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, as spelled out in Court Orders Up to $80,000 in Civil Penalties for Four Companies after Improper Asbestos Removal, Press Release, The Office of Massachusetts Attorney General

Continue reading
Contact Information
Boston Office
1 International Pl Unit 1810
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 777-7777Fax: (617) 722-9999
Taunton Office
60 Court St
Taunton, MA 02780
By Appointment Only
Quincy Office
308 Victory Rd
Quincy, MA 02171
By Appointment Only

Worcester Office
43 Harvard St
Worcester, MA 01609
By Appointment Only
Disclaimer – The settlements above are only a sample of cases represented by our office. Each case is different and the amount of a potential resolution of your case will vary considerably depending on a substantial amount of factors. Some case results were worked in conjunction with partnering law firms.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design