Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog

March 30, 2012

Boston Mesothelioma Lawyers Hail UK Victims’ Victory

Those suffering from mesothelioma in Boston should be encouraged by news that has just come out of London, where thousands of families will now be able to file insurance claims for their conditions.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys have been closely following the news from across the pond, where the nation’s supreme court ruled that the insurance liability was induced at the time that the individual was exposed – not when the disease was first discovered.

This is crucial in mesothelioma cases because, as we’ve discussed on our Boston Mesothelioma Lawyer’s Blog, this is a cancer that often doesn’t reveal itself for years – usually decades – after the initial exposure. By that time, it is often too late for individuals to seek any kind of effective treatment. In fact, patients usually have less than a year to live.

March 26, 2012

Are You a Foreseeable Victim in Your Boston Mesothelioma Case? See Simpkins v. CSX Corp.

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

In our daily lives we can be oblivious to the potential harms around us. If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma you might wonder how you were exposed to asbestos and not have know the potential harms.

Having a Boston mesothelioma attorney is critical to getting the award you deserve. Our attorneys have the experience and tenacity to identify the proper arguments and parties in your Boston mesothelioma case.

Simpkins v. CSX is a case where the plaintiff’s husband was exposed to asbestos daily while working for the defendant. Upon returning home from work each night, there was asbestos residue on his clothing. This caused his wife to inhale this asbestos and subsequently suffer from mesothelioma. Plaintiff sued her husband’s former employer claiming negligence, wanton and willful conduct and strict liability.

In a case for negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence all of the elements of negligence. Plaintiff has to prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and the plaintiff suffered damages. Simpkins argues that as to her negligence claim, the defendants failed to take the proper precautions to protect plaintiff’s husband and their family from the potential “take-home asbestos exposure.”

Strict liability is an imposition of liability where the defendant is engaged in ultrahazardous activity. Plaintiff argued that the defendants should be held liable because they were engaged in activities with products containing asbestos.

On the other hand, CSX claimed that no liability can be imposed on them because they did not owe any duty to a third party non-employee who was exposed to asbestos, like the plaintiff. Furthermore, plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant and had never been on the work premises. Because of this lack of a direct relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, defendant argues they had no duty to plaintiff.

This conflict over whether there was a duty involved in this case led the court to analyze the entire concept of duty. In order to do this, the court looked to public policy in their consideration of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The court cites prior case law where this relationship is further analyzed and divided into four separate components. These components are: the reasonable foreseeability of the plaintiff’s injury, the likelihood of the injury, the amount effort needed to protect from injury, and the consequences of placing this burden of prevention on the defendant.

What is crucial in this case is the general rule that states that there is no duty to rescue a stranger. However, where there is a special relationship a duty to take these affirmative actions can be created. But the court here explains that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant does not constitute as one of these four special relationships.

Plaintiff in this case proved that her husband worked for defendants and that plaintiff’s husband was exposed to asbestos. Plaintiff also showed that it was reasonable to find that her husband carried this asbestos home on his clothing. However, she failed to prove that the defendant knew or should have known that there was an unreasonably high risk of harm to the plaintiff. To prove this, plaintiff would have had to show specific facts that would prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of this risk of harm to plaintiff.

Illinois Supreme Court in this case found that in this cause of action for negligence the main issue was whether the defendants could have reasonably foreseen that their actions could cause the plaintiff’s injuries. Basically, the defendant’s owe a duty of care to foreseeable victims.

In analysis, the plaintiff did prove that the defendant’s acts or omissions contributed to the risk of harm to the plaintiff. However the second part of the duty analysis rests on the four components of the relationship discussed above. Because plaintiff did not prove that her injuries were foreseeable this court found her pleadings insufficient and they remanded it to the lower court for further proceedings.

There are so many components to every theory in every area of law. Having an experienced attorney guiding you can give you the peace of mind you need to concentrate on your health.
Continue reading

March 15, 2012

What Is Employer’s Duty in Boston Mesothelioma Cases, O’Neil v. Crane Discusses

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

When you are involved in a Boston mesothelioma case, questions may arise regarding what your employer’s duty was in protecting you from unsafe products. It is often hard to think that you were working with fatal substances and no one warned you. Having an experienced Boston mesothelioma attorney to help investigate the facts and recognize the legal issues in your case is essential to recovering the award you deserve.
factory 1.jpg
In O’Neil v. Crane, the court discusses the issue surrounding the duty employers owe to their employees. The issue is specifically whether a manufacturer has a duty to protect employees from foreseeable harm associated with the products used in the production of their items.

Defendants are manufacturers of valves and pumps used in Navy warships. They would buy external insulation and internal gaskets and packing from a third party in order to produce these pumps and valves. These components used by the manufacturers contained asbestos that harmed the plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff was exposed to these items containing asbestos in her capacity as an employee for the defendants. Plaintiff suffered harm associated with this asbestos and subsequently died.

Plaintiff’s estate filed a lawsuit against her former employers for wrongful death, claiming that the defendants should be held strictly liable in addition to negligence because it was foreseeable that their workers would be exposed to and harmed by the asbestos in the components they used in manufacturing the pumps and valves.

Strict liability is a form of liability common in torts, which is classified as a civil wrong. This type of liability is very common in product liability cases because there is no need to prove negligence or intent. In order to prove that the defendant is guilty under strict liability, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is responsible for the civil wrong that occurred which harmed the plaintiff.

On the other hand, negligence requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, that the defendants breached that duty, that the breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and there were damages.

The question presented to this court was whether the product manufacturer breached their duty to their employees where there were injuries to these employees caused by the products and parts that were made by a third party, but used by the defendant to produce their products.

The Supreme Court of California held that where the employee of a product manufacturer was harmed because of the products of a third-party manufacturer that was used in the manufacturing of the product by the employer manufacturer, the employer was not liable for harm caused to the employee unless the defendant’s own products contributed substantially to the harm or the defendant participated in creating a substantially harmful combined use of the products.

The court here indicates that this motion for strict liability would expand on the construction of the concept of strict liability, and they refused to do this. The current law in California imposes this strict liability on manufacturers whose products are defective and cause injury. However, the court distinguishes imposing liability in those cases from the plaintiff’s contention in this case where the plaintiff contends that the defendant is liable for not foreseeing the injuries caused by products manufactured by another company.

As to the question of negligence, this court indicated that the manufacturer had no duty to warn of potential hazards in third-party parts used in their manufacturing when the hazards were not integral to the products design. It is considered unlikely that manufacturers would be able to ensure that there were no unknowable risks or hazards lurking in every item they used in the manufacturing of their products.

Therefore, plaintiff lost the case as to the two proposed theories of imposition of liability.

Each state has different laws regarding liability in mesothelioma cases. Having an experienced attorney to make the arguments for you can give you the peace of mind you need to concentrate on getting better.
Continue reading

March 8, 2012

Daley v. A.W. Chesterton Discusses Remedies for Multiple Diseases Associated with Asbestos Exposure

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

If you were diagnosed with mesothelioma in Boston as a result of asbestos in the workplace you may be thinking that suing a large company will be no easy feat. Do not get discouraged. Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys have the knowledge and experience to take on the big companies to get you the award you deserve.

Cancer runs rampant in our country but mesothelioma is very unique. Mesothelioma is cancer, usually in the respiratory system that results from exposure to asbestos. Asbestos is a dangerous substance that has been linked to usage in the manufacturing and building industries.

Daley v. A.W. Chesterton is a case that arose because a laborer who was working in the manufacturing sector became ill because of his exposure to asbestos. He was diagnosed with two malignant diseases over a span of 16 years, and he sought compensatory and punitive damages from several parties who were responsible for this exposure.

Compensatory damages are the quantifiable damages that are measured monetarily to replace strictly the financial loss to the plaintiff. In instances where there is injury or disease that resulted because of the defendant’s negligence, compensatory damages would be awarded to compensate the plaintiff for the medical bills incurred for treatments resulting from that defendant’s negligence. Punitive damages have the intention of punishing the defendant and deterring the negligent behavior, and are awarded for things like pain and suffering.

In Daley, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was charged with the question of whether a plaintiff could bring more than one separate lawsuit where the plaintiff was diagnosed with more than one malignant disease that was the result of the same asbestos exposure.

Pennsylvania has a state statute called the two disease rule. This rule allows individuals to bring separate lawsuits where the plaintiff can prove that he or she was diagnosed with more than one malignant disease that was the result of defendant’s negligence.

The plaintiff in this case was first diagnosed with pulmonary asbestosis and squamous-cell carcinoma in his right lung. These diseases can be directly attributed to exposure to asbestos. He sued several parties and obtained a settlement in the mid 1990s.

More than 10 years later, the plaintiff was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. This cancer can be directly linked to the same asbestos exposure that gave the plaintiff the original diagnosis. Plaintiff then sued several different parties for negligence and cited this two-disease rule.

The defendants in this case argued that the doctrine of res judicata precluded this action. Res judicata is a doctrine surrounding claim preclusion in that a suit cannot be brought if the main issue in the second suit is exactly the same as the first and there are the same parties to the action. Basically, they argued that the plaintiff lost his right to sue these parties in the second litigation when he sued the original parties to the lawsuit because the diseases arose out of the same asbestos exposure.

The court cited that this was incorrect reasoning because none of the defendant named in the second litigation are the same as the defendants named in the first case that was settled in the late 1990s. Additionally, the court discussed this two-disease rule, which is a limited exception to the original cause of action requirements created by the state legislature to provide relief for asbestos-related diseases.

In application, the plaintiff was allowed to sue the different defendants in the second case for a different malignant asbestos related disease arising from the same asbestos exposure that led to a prior settlement for damages associated with a different malignant disease. The plaintiff was allowed to do this because at the time he brought the original claim, he had no knowledge of the existence of the second asbestos-related malignant disease.

Consequently, this court decided that the separated disease rule of Pennsylvania allowed this plaintiff to file a second cause of action for the new malignant asbestos-related disease.

Having an experienced legal team can be very beneficial in navigating your way to the award you deserve.
Continue reading

March 1, 2012

Another $500,000 Dedicated to Finding a Cure For Mesothelioma in New England

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

The Meso Foundation, also called The Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, recently announced that it was dedicating another $500,000 toward research for mesothelioma in New England and nationwide.

This is good news for those who have seen how devastating mesothelioma can be to a person. This incurable form of cancer strikes in its advanced ages, years after a person has been exposed to asbestos.

In many cases, our Boston mesothelioma lawyers have seen, people were exposed to asbestos decades earlier without feeling any symptoms. It’s not until the cancer is in its later stages that people begin feeling the common symptoms of chest pain, trouble breathing and others that indicate something is wrong.

Since other non-cancer illnesses can sometimes have similar symptoms, patients may ignore the symptoms and don’t get themselves checked out. In other cases, people go to the doctor but are unable to get a good diagnosis right away because the medical facility isn’t sure what is causing the problem. This only delays treatment.

Sadly, research has shown that once a person gets the diagnosis of mesothelioma, they usually only live another 12 months. Because these tumors can stay largely hidden inside a person’s body for so long without symptoms, the slow-moving cancer can cause a quick death.

And that’s why researchers are excited that organizations are willing to prove these funds to try to find a cure. The foundation reports that out of 46 different applications for the grant money, they chose five projects.

Officials said they hope that the money will work to find a cure. At the very least, the research may be able to find out more about how the cancer works, why it stays hidden, how it reacts to treatments, such as chemotherapy, and perhaps even how to identify the cancer more quickly.

The projects went through a peer-review process, being reviewed by member of the foundation’s board. They looked at what the proposed projects would do, what techniques and form of science they would use and what the stated goal is.

Among the projects that will be completed:

A study trying to combine genomic data of 10 mesothelioma tumors to look at molecular characteristics and defining how defective genes impact malignant cells. This project looks to study which genes are meaningful in disease treatment.

An investigation into how the immune system proteins regulate the response of chemotherapy cell death in mesothelioma cells. Previous work has shown that patients who had low or no levels of a certain protein in their tumor cells had longer time without the disease.

The foundation has now provided $7.6 million in grant money to research this form of cancer. The five new grants bring the total to 76 that have been funded by the efforts of this foundation. Everyone wants to see a cancer-free world. For those with mesothelioma and their families, this research means a lot. Mesothelioma hasn’t gotten the type of attention other cancers have, so any money available to research it is important.
Continue reading

February 20, 2012

New England Veterans Suffering from Mesothelioma Offered Part of $75 Million Trust by Navy Supplier

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

A company that for half a century provided asbestos-laden parts to the U.S. Navy recently set up a $75 million asbestos trust for veterans who may have been exposed and suffered illnesses because of it.

Many U.S. veterans were exposed to asbestos while serving aboard Navy ships when the government regularly used this natural mineral as an insulation and a protector from fire. It was used in piping, valves and other parts to resist heat and fire. The flaky mineral can easily be ingested and lead to tumors that grow on the lining of major organs on patients with mesothelioma in New England.

Our Massachusetts mesothelioma lawyers have met many veterans who served faithfully in order to protect our country’s freedom. Yet during that service time, they were exposed to asbestos. In many cases, the companies that supplied the products laden with asbestos knew of their effects or at least had been warned that people were getting sick.

Yet unsuspecting veterans were working on these U.S. Navy ships and in shipyards where asbestos was commonly found. Decades later, far after retirement, these men and women are now getting sick and being diagnosed with major illnesses, including mesothelioma, which is deadly and has no cure.

A person can be exposed to asbestos at a young age and live with the cancer for years without it showing any outward symptoms or signs. By the time a person feels those symptoms — commonly reflected as heavy coughing, chest pain, fluid build-up and others — it’s typically too late. The cancer is in its advanced stages and there are few treatment options that can help.

According to several sources, Leslie Controls Inc., as part of a bankruptcy reorganization plan, has dedicated $75 million to victims of asbestos exposure. The company provided valves and gaskets that were covered in asbestos for the Navy between the 1940s and 1980s. The company has been named in a growing number of asbestos-related and mesothelioma lawsuits. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2010.

The legal strategy of the company is to be able to handle all current and future litigation that may crop up because of the company’s use of the dangerous mineral. The fibers, research has shown, are the primary cause for mesothelioma and other respiratory ailments.

The U.S. Navy is protected from direct lawsuits under sovereign immunity and Feres Doctrine laws. However, individuals may file lawsuits against manufacturers that contracted with the government on a regular basis. Leslie has previously contended that its products didn’t contribute to asbestos exposure for veterans.

All lawsuits were halted in 2010 because of the bankruptcy filing. Once the reorganization plan is approved by the court, the lawsuits are expected to continue. The company continues to manufacture and supply valves and subsystems in the energy, industrial and aerospace markets.
Continue reading

February 15, 2012

Company Lobbies to Limit Asbestos Liability, a Lesson to Mass. Lawmakers

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

A company that manufactures cans in Minnesota is attempting to use lobbying efforts to try to shield itself from asbestos lawsuits after workers have complained of getting sick, the Star Tribune is reporting.

This can be a lesson to Massachusetts lawmakers who must deal with the problems here associated with constituents who are exposed to asbestos in New England. While there are no longer active vermiculite mines that may contain asbestos, that doesn’t mean people here couldn’t be exposed – or haven’t been already.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers understand that mesothelioma doesn’t get the same time of attention that other forms of cancer may get. It is fatal, though, and there is no known cure.

Companies that have old factories or old manufacturing plants often are faced with the problem of having asbestos it the walls or in piping. This can cause employees to be exposed to asbestos, which in turn causes long-term health problems.

In Minnesota, a company that has three manufacturing plants is hoping to change state law that could limit the number of asbestos claims stemming from a merger in the 1960s. The company says current laws have caused it to have to pay $700 million in claims and lawyer fees on top of $1 billion in borrowing costs associated with the litigation.

Lawyers say the proposal, which is up for a vote in the state senate, is the company’s way of trying to skirt the rules and get the law changed so they can protect themselves from lawsuits. Experts say that if the law is changed to help this company, it could affect all companies and set a bad precedent for future lawsuits.

The company currently has about 150 asbestos cases statewide, with most being filed in the last 15 years. In the last year, only a few have been filed, lawmakers say. Company officials say they hope the law change will help their image with Wall Street.

Analysts believe that current litigation could take decades to be completed and it could go on into the future because health problems with asbestos exposure can take decades to detect. Future victims who don’t know they’re sick could end up being affected if this measure is passed.

This is a good lesson for Massachusetts lawmakers because it’s possible that Massachusetts residents could attempt to bring similar litigation here. Big companies with many employees, including past employees who may have been harmed by asbestos exposure, may file future lawsuits.

The tricky thing with mesothelioma is that workers may not find out about the cancer until years in the future, even though they were employees decades ago. Therefore, if politicians attempt to help these companies — which may have put these workers at risk by letting there be asbestos in their buildings — by changing the laws, it could mean major problems in the future.

If employees aren’t able to get the help they need to pay for major medical bills, they may have nowhere to turn. It’s important that the laws are in place to help employees who may have been harmed or killed because of company negligence.
Continue reading

February 13, 2012

Schools to Spend $9 Million to Remove Asbestos in New England

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

East Providence officials recently agreed to a plan to spend $9 million clearing out asbestos from schools in that city, showing that asbestos in New England is still an issue.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers recognize that asbestos isn’t something many citizens are constantly thinking of today. Some people think of it as a problem of the past — one that only affects older generations.

And while older citizens often are the ones suffering from asbestos-related illnesses, such as mesothelioma, the fact that school districts are still today trying to clean asbestos out of their facilities shows that it still may be a problem. And if our children are exposed to asbestos, it will only create a new generation of sufferers.

On the one hand, it’s encouraging that school districts are earmarking funds that will be designed to eliminate dangerous asbestos from schools throughout our communities. On the other, however, it’s disheartening that in 2012 asbestos is still in many of our schools, possibly affecting our children.

Research has shown that even a small amount of asbestos exposure can cause major issues years later. With mesothelioma, victims could have been exposed as many as 30 or 40 years ago, and have no symptoms. Once they are checked out and diagnosed, the incurable cancer is in its advanced stages. The median survival rate after diagnosis is only 12 months. That’s what makes this cancer so frustrating — it takes so long to develop and then kills swiftly.

While asbestos was a natural mineral used for insulation for decades — from about 1910 to 1990 — researchers began finding that exposure caused sickness around the 1970s. So, it’s now been more than 40 years that people have known asbestos is dangerous, and yet it is still in our schools today.

Renovating or properly removing asbestos can be dangerous. But letting it sit and possibly become disturbed may be more dangerous – even deadly. No parent wants to send their child to a school where they could be harmed simply for walking in the front door.

At least Rhode Island officials are taking the situation seriously. According to the East Providence Patch, the Rhode Island Building Energy code secured $9 million to renovate several schools. The plans were held up as officials tried to get the funding to do the projects.

Officials hope that their efforts will be done by the summer so that the schools will be free from the harmful materials by the new school year. Health department officials said they were happy with the news. They had mandated air testing at the schools. Contractors said they will work closely with health officials to ensure that the renovation is done properly and licensed asbestos removal experts are hired to do the job. This is a highly regulated field, which shows the importance of doing it right the first time.
Continue reading

February 10, 2012

Developer Faces Criminal Charges in Asbestos Exposure Case

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Recent news out of Upstate New York shows that developers there are unable to follow the law regarding asbestos removal, just like construction workers from Massachusetts.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers have reported before on our Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog about situations where real estate developers try to skirt the law and end up getting arrested.

Two Plainville men — one a contractor and one a home owner — were recently charged with improperly removing asbestos from an old house in Medway. Rather than hire trained asbestos removal experts to do the job, they tried to do it themselves. Not only did they probably expose themselves to asbestos, but they could have put others in danger. Asbestos exposure in Massachusetts is the leading cause of mesothelioma.

Asbestos is flaky and can easily travel through the air. This is where it’s most dangerous because people can ingest it through their mouths or noses without even knowing. And even a small amount of exposure can do damage.

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that is caused by exposure to asbestos. The asbestos can travel through a person’s system and attach to major organs, making operation difficult or impossible. Chemotherapy is an option, but not a cure. Researchers are working on figuring out a better way to treat the cancer.

In this case, according to NBC News, a 28-year-old developer now faces up to 10 years in prison plus a $250,000 fine after being charged with violating the Clean Air Act. He faces two counts of the crime.

Prosecutors say the man was working on a downtown Livingston County warehouse he owed. He hired workers to haul large quantities of asbestos without getting approval or hiring a trained expert in the field.

A state inspector visited the work site one day in December and saw large materials near a dumpster that looked like asbestos. After testing, it was confirmed to be the dangerous mineral. Nearly 100 bags of dry, friable asbestos were found and tested. Employees were working nearby the asbestos, which was sitting out in the open.

Prosecutors say that any person who may have been near the site between August 1 and December 14, 2011 could have been put at risk of asbestos exposure. Any gust of wind would have taken that flaky asbestos and sent it all around the area. People could have easily been exposed without knowing it. It would be prudent for people who live in the area to be seen by a doctor.

Sadly, if not for a complaint that led to an inspection, the problem may never have been exposed. People would have ended up with mesothelioma years in the future not knowing why. This happens, as developers try to save money by improperly removing asbestos. It is not used in this country for a reason — it’s dangerous.
Continue reading

February 8, 2012

Libby Asbestos Victims May Get $19.5 Million For Mesothelioma

by Jeffrey S. Glassman

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers for years have been following the tragic news out of Libby, Montana, where thousands of people have gotten sick and many others have died as a result of heavy exposure to asbestos.

For most of the 21st Century, that city produced a large majority of the vermiculite, which was tainted with asbestos, used in the United States. The natural mineral was mined and shipped to different plants throughout the country, where it was processed and then turned into insulation, coating for pipes and in boiler rooms as well as on common products, such as brake pads and crock pots.

Research has shown that asbestos exposure has been linked to and is the leading cause of mesothelioma in New England. This natural mineral can get into a person’s body and form the cancer over a period of decades. In some cases, the exposure to asbestos occurred 50 years before a person was diagnosed.

Sadly, once a person is diagnosed, the typical time they have left to live is only 12 months. So, mesothelioma is not only incurable, but takes decades to manifest itself and by then the cancer is so advanced it is unstoppable.

And many people in this country have been diagnosed with mesothelioma after being exposed to Libby asbestos. This mine was churning out 70 percent of the country’s asbestos between 1920 and 1990. Books and news articles on the subject have described a dusty film that coated the town, causing everyone around to be exposed.

At the time, people didn’t know the ill effects of asbestos. But as people began getting sick, researchers found that asbestos was the root cause. Lawsuits have claimed that the company that ran the mine, WR Grace & Co., found out about the problems but did nothing to stop them or tell their workers. A federal prosecution was unsuccessful and living workers and their relatives have been trying to get any money they can to try to help with medical bills.

According to a recent article in The Daily Inter Lake, a bankruptcy case between the company and those who got ill as a result of the asbestos in the city could result in a $19.5 million settlement in favor of the victims. Grace filed for bankruptcy in 2001 after being slammed with asbestos-related claims.

The mine has been shut down for more than two decades, but people are still being diagnosed today. Grace set up a medical program in 2000 and has funded it voluntarily, the newspaper reports. The settlement would provide some stability, since the company could fold the medical program at any time.

Grace has been named in more than 110,000 asbestos personal injury claims. The money for the settlement will come from cash, insurance proceeds, common stock and other sources. Asbestos victims have also been receiving checks from the state of Montana, which agreed to a $43 million settlement to compensate victims. The federal government has also earmarked funds.
Continue reading