Articles Tagged with Boston mesothelioma attorney

Many homes in Boston were built over a hundred years ago, and renovated many decades ago, if they were renovated at all. Many homes renovated between the 1950s and the 1980s feature what has been called a popcorn ceiling. Even if you do not have a popcorn ceiling in your home now, you have likely seen one.  They are created by spraying on or painting on a textured level giving it a popcorn-like look. There are a few claimed reasons this was done, from reducing noise from people walking above, which was helpful in any multi-family dwelling, to making it much harder to see any imperfections in the ceiling plaster or drywall.  A large ceiling space, which is flat, will easily show off any imperfections in the material.

The main reason, however, they were so heavily used is because they became very popular in the 1960s,and this continued until the late 1970s.  The problem with ceilings today, aside from looking outdated, is the popcorn material was largely created with white asbestos fibers.  This made it very dangerous to those who were painting the ceilings and many of these victims developed the deadly form of cancer known as mesothelioma decades later as it will typically take between 20 and 50 years for those exposed to asbestos to develop symptoms, forcing them to go to a doctor for a diagnosis. Continue reading

Mesothelioma lawsuits in Boston are significantly different from many other types of personal injury lawsuits and products liability actions. One of the major reasons deals with when the injury is discovered and when a suit can be brought. In most personal injury cases, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the injury occurs.   The specific statutes of limitations for various civil actions are found in Chapter 260 of the Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.).

For example, pursuant to Section 2A of the M.G.L., a tort action for a personal injury lawsuit filed in Boston must be brought within three years of when the cause of action arises, which is usually the time of the injury or onset of the illness.  Continue reading

In most personal injury lawsuits, the plaintiffs (victims) are able to fully participate in their case and appear at deposition or as a witness at trial. This is often true even in serious Boston personal injury lawsuits after plaintiff has undergone numerous surgeries and an extended hospital stay.  In Boston mesothelioma lawsuits, however, plaintiffs are very sick people who sadly for the most part will not survive the duration of a civil lawsuit filed in federal court or the Suffolk Superior Court. That does not mean such cases aren’t worth pursuing. We can often arrange an immediate deposition and thereafter minimize the involvement of the plaintiff. Even if plaintiff never personally sees the conclusion of the case, they are often still worth pursuing.

Mesothelioma lawsuits are about:

• Ensuring your family/ loved ones are financial secure, given the fact that you have died an untimely death caused by someone else’s negligence that left you unable to continue your contributions;
• Holding accountable those companies or individuals that profited by deceiving the public and concealing the known dangers of their product;
• Being a lesson to other businesses and individuals about the price they will pay for marketing dangerous products.

Our dedicated attorneys for asbestos injury plaintiffs are committed to helping walk individuals and families through this difficult and sometimes confusing process.  Continue reading

If a plaintiff has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, there is very little question his or her deadly form of cancer was caused by exposure to asbestos fibers.  The legal issue is therefore not whether plaintiff was exposed to asbestos, but rather when such exposure occurred and what company manufactured the asbestos products to which plaintiff was exposed.

In some cases, the answer to this question is fairly easy such as when the plaintiff worked for a company that mined asbestos minerals or a company that manufactured products from those asbestos minerals. However, these cases are not as common anymore because asbestos is no longer in widespread use. Today, many current plaintiffs were exposed while working in the construction trades or at a factory as these plants were often filled with asbestos-laden products. Continue reading

Several months ago, one brand of children’s makeup was pulled from store shelves across across the country due to asbestos being found in the products.  According to a recent news article from Quartz, lab tests revealed asbestos in another brand of makeup products designed for use by children.

The recent issue came to light when a mother who purchased some of the cosmetics for her daughter and became concerned they may have contained asbestos.  While there did not appear to be any obvious signs of asbestos in the makeup, it was very similar to other makeup involved in a previous asbestos case.  This particular customer had been working with a materials testing laboratory as part of her occupation and decided to have this makeup tested just based upon an alleged hunch. Continue reading

There was a long period during American history when the general public was largely not aware of the dangers of asbestos. That is no longer the case. These days, most people are aware of the dangers of deadly asbestos fibers, though many erroneously assume the material has been banned in the U.S.

In the late 1970s, when the dangers of asbestos became public knowledge, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), attempted to ban the mining of asbestos and the importation of raw asbestos and goods that contain measurable amounts of asbestos.  Unfortunately, this law was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court a couple of years of after it was enacted on grounds that EPA had overstepped its bounds and did not have the authority to create a law that affects interstate commerce without action from congress.

Today, the asbestos industry isn’t exactly thriving in the U.S., but neither is it dead.

Continue reading

Under state law, there are numerous types of damage one can claim in personal injury or wrongful death civil cases. There are economic damages, such as those for medical expenses, continuing medical care and lost wages. There are also non-economic damages, such as those for pain and suffering and loss of life enjoyment. Beyond that, there are punitive damages (also known as exemplary damages), which are intended to punish a defendant. Punitive damages aren’t available in most Massachusetts personal injury cases, but per M.G.L. c. 229, they may be allowed in wrongful death cases where a corporation committed gross negligence or willful or wanton conduct.

This can be applied in some mesothelioma/ asbestos exposure cases, given that asbestos is a deadly fiber that when breathed into the lungs causes a latent form of cancer that is terminal.

Throughout the last two centuries, companies in the asbestos industry have hidden the dangers of this toxic material from the general public. Unfortunately, it seems some businesses are still allowing workers to be placed at risk for deadly asbestos exposure – and that means they have greater odds of paying punitive damages for their actions. Continue reading

One of the more difficult aspects of litigating a mesothelioma lawsuit in Boston is identifying who is responsible for the harm caused. Beyond that, there may be issues determining which liability insurance company is responsible to pay the claim. Some companies have established trusts to help pay future claims. However, some of these companies don’t exist anymore and tracking down their liability insurance can be tedious.

Even in cases where that information is readily available, insurers are fighting tooth-and-nail to avoid getting involved, looking for any exemption or loophole they can find. That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth it, but you will need an experienced Boston mesothelioma attorney on your side throughout the process. 

Recently, the New York Supreme Court ruled a liability insurer that provided coverage to contractors and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey must defend those entities against asbestos claims filed by construction workers allegedly exposed to asbestos while building the World Trade Center Complex back in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Those workers are only now learning of their illness, and the root cause of it. The insurer fought to extricate itself from these claims, arguing the alleged exposure occurred outside the coverage period. The Supreme Court of the State of New York has ruled the insurer did provide coverage to the defendants during the alleged exposure period, and thus the insurer has a duty to defend.

This doesn’t necessarily mean plaintiffs will win their claims, but it does mean they will have the opportunity to do so – and to collect on any verdicts if they win.

Continue reading