Articles Tagged with Boston mesothelioma attorney

On the 15th anniversary to the 9/11 terror attacks in New York City and Washington, DC, Vice President Joe Biden choose to speak about how these events rocked our nation and about how the many rescue and recovery workers were exposed to a great deal of toxic dust, including some that contained deadly asbestos fibers, according to a recent news feature form Yahoo News.   This is part of the Cancer Moonshot program launched by President Barack Obama at his last State of the Union Address.

world-trade-center-1235234The Twin Towers of New York City’s World Trade Center complex, as it existed in September 2001, were constructed at a time when asbestos was used in virtually every aspect of construction.  World Trade Center One and World Trade Center 2 (the formal names for the Twin Towers) were no exception to this, and neither were the other buildings and underground structures that surround the Twin Towers. Continue reading

According to a recent news feature from WTAE, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has levied a fine against a major American steel producer after an investigation confirmed that the company had allegedly exposed its workers to deadly asbestos fibers.

valveWhen asbestos dust is inhaled, the fibers can become trapped in a layer of tissue known as the mesothelium.  The mesothelium is made up of a special type of cells that form the layer which lines most internal organs in the body. Once the fibers become trapped in the mesothelium, they can metastasize into a deadly form of cancer known as mesothelioma. Continue reading

Malignant mesothelioma is considered a rare disease.  Compared to the number of people that get diagnosed with diabetes, for example, it is a very rare disease.  However, to the roughly 3,000 people who are diagnosed in the United States with malignant mesothelioma and told they only have a short time to live, the fact that it is rare is of little comfort.  In fact, the opposite is generally true.  With malignant mesothelioma being so rare, it is considered an orphan disease, which essentially means there is little profit in working towards a cure.  If more people got malignant mesothelioma each year, and the drug companies smelled profit, we might be a lot closer to a real cure.

mlJATEQHowever, before we can discuss a cure, it is important to understand what malignant mesothelioma actually is.  A recent news feature from Healio takes a look at this issue. As discussed in this article, malignant mesothelioma first occurs in a layer of cells known as the mesothelium.  This layer of cells is present in most internal organs of the human body.  We typically see the cancer occurring in the pericardial mesothelium, which is in the chest, the peritoneal mesothelium, which is in the stomach, and pleural mesothelium, which is in the lungs.  However, we can also find malignant mesothelioma in the mesotheliomas of the tunica vaginalis, which form the beginning of the testicular lining. However, it should be noted that once mesothelioma forms in one of these areas, it can quickly spread to the rest of the body. Continue reading

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Stidham involved plaintiffs who were diagnosed with lung cancer that attempted to join a single lawsuit against the tobacco companies and the producers of asbestos and asbestos products. These plaintiffs asserted that their cancers were the result of both exposures to deadly asbestos fibers as well from years of tobacco smoking.

cigarette-1478450This is not the first time that plaintiffs sued both the cigarette manufacturers and the asbestos companies together, but in this case, there were procedural challenges.  In this jurisdiction, asbestos cases are tried on a special asbestos docket. Continue reading

As you may have heard, last month President Barack Obama signed a bill into law that allows the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to more easily ban toxic substances, including deadly asbestos fibers. This bill was one of the few bills in recent history that received bipartisan support.

lungsWhile many people think asbestos was banned in the late 1970s, what they may not realize is that the EPA’s ban was overturned a few years later by the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds that this type of ban could not be accomplished exclusively by an executive agency without the support of Congress.  This is not to say that it was unconstitutional to ban asbestos, but rather the way in which it was done was the problem. Continue reading

Despite a ruling by the California Supreme Court in favor of defendant in Webb v. Special Electric, the case was still ultimately decided in favor of plaintiff upon remand. gavel21

The state high court’s ruling in this asbestos injury lawsuit involved something called the “sophisticated intermediary doctrine.” This ruling provided an additional viable defense for defendants in product liability lawsuits, such as those filed against makers and distributors of products that contained toxic asbestos.

Even so, plaintiff in the case prevailed.  Continue reading

The New Jersey Supreme Court has expanded an earlier decision pertaining to “take-home toxic tort liability,” which is the assertion that companies can be responsible when their workers exposed to potentially harmful materials and take those materials home to their spouses. jeans

Now, in Schwartz v. Accuratus Corporation, justices ruled that potential liability can extend not just to the workers’ spouse, but also to roommates and unmarried romantic partners.

The ruling was issued at the behest of a federal court which is handling a case in which a woman in Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against a ceramics company where her husband and roommate were once employed. Plaintiff alleges she suffered severe illness in the form of chronic beryllium disease. It’s a condition that affects the lungs, and similar to mesothelioma, it’s caused by breathing in tiny toxic fibers and particles that are routinely found in industrial factories and other facilities.  Continue reading

The “every exposure” theory in asbestos litigation has been widely criticized and many judges have concluded it doesn’t pass muster in a court of law. The crux of it is that because no amount of exposure to asbestos is safe, every exposure to asbestos must be harmful. But simply showing a single exposure – or just a few exposures – to asbestos usually isn’t enough to win a personal injury or wrongful death case. gavel7

That means asbestos injury attorneys have to be prepared to introduce as much evidence as possible showing plaintiff endured a great deal of exposure. Failure to do so may result in an outcome like what was seen recently in Georgia in the case of Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc. v. Knight et al., in which the Georgia Supreme Court tossed a $4 million mesothelioma verdict, finding the use of the every exposure theory in trial was inadequate to prove defendant’s liability.

Specifically, the court ruled, plaintiff’s expert witness failed to analyze the extent of exposure in any sort of meaningful way and he also failed to qualify his opinion on causation by limiting it to such an estimate of exposure.  Continue reading

Some defendants in asbestos litigation, facing crippling debt in the face of accountability for concealing the danger of their products and failing to protect the public, filed for bankruptcy and established trusts to pay out current and future claims.gavel21

More than 100 companies have filed for bankruptcy protection due in whole or in part to asbestos litigation, collectively containing about $20 billion in assets – and another $12 billion in assets pending, according to an analysis by Bates White Economic Consulting. It’s important for mesothelioma attorneys to keep careful tabs on how much is contained in these trusts because it plays a role in how much will be paid out per each individual claim.

Many of the bankrupted companies – and claimants – have relied on previous insurance policies to make good on claim payments. In fact, a 2015 report by rating agency A.M. Best Co. indicated the insurance industry has paid out more than $90 million in combined asbestos and environmental losses, and there is approximately $27 billion still available to fund future payments. This heavy reliance on the insurance industry makes it imperative to follow the cases that may have an impact on claimants’ ability to collect. Recently, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently ruled in Rapid-American Corp. et al. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. et al. that providers of excess insurance to a now-bankrupt asbestos product manufacturer do not have to provide coverage unless and until the primary insurers have paid in full under those policies.  Continue reading

A brake arcing machine manufacturer can be held accountable for toxic asbestos exposure to a mechanic, even though its product did not actually contain asbestos. sparks1

These machines were used to grind asbestos-laden brake linings in auto mechanic shops throughout the country for decades.

Defendant in the California case of Rondon v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. argued that not only did its products not contain asbestos, but its machines were not designed to be used exclusively with products that contained asbestos. There was in fact ample evidence its machines were used on non-asbestos brake pads. It was based on this the trial court dismissed. But plaintiff appealed, and now the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, has reversed, finding this “exclusive use” standard the defendant used should not have been used. The proper test was the “inevitable use” test, in which it is determined the machines would inevitably be used in a way that exposed workers to asbestos dust without adequate warning or protection.

According to court records, plaintiff developed mesothelioma after years of working as a mechanic and being exposed to asbestos dust while grinding brake linings. He alleged it was the brake arcing machines that actually released the dust into the air as he worked from 1965 to 1988. He alleged the manufacturer of these machines was liable under theories of both negligence and strict liability because, he argued, these machines had no other function than to grind these asbestos-filled brake linings.  Continue reading

Contact Information