Articles Posted in Companies & Asbestos

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as Mr. B.Z.

In this case, a Utah resident, Mr. B.Z. Claims that his mesothelioma was caused by talc pleurodesis, a procedure that was meant to help him. Talc pleurodesis is a medical procedure that helps prevent fluid or air from accumulating in the pleural cavity. This medical procedure is for patients with respiratory issues such as malignant pleural mesothelioma. Many people have and continue to benefit from talc pleurodesis. Unfortunately, for B.Z., a procedure that was supposed to help him ended up causing him harm. According to Mr. B.Z., the talc used during his treatments in 2014 and 2020 resulted in him developing mesothelioma.

Over the years, many ovarian cancer and malignant mesothelioma patients have filed lawsuits against manufacturers and suppliers of cosmetic and industrial talc. These individuals have blamed these companies for acting negligently by failing to warn people about the presence of asbestos in their products and for distributing unsafe goods that can cause several health issues.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as P.J.M.

In a recent court decision, Justice Adam Silvera denied DAP’s motion for summary judgment despite them presenting affidavits provided by their employee. In this case, the family of P.J.M., who passed away due to mesothelioma, an illness that develops due to asbestos exposure, named DAP Inc. and others as defendants. The family blamed P.J.M.’s disease on exposure to several products that contained asbestos. DAP requested dismissal from the case by filing a motion for summary judgment. The defendant claimed it did not make or sell the products the family is blaming for Mr. P.J.M.’s illness. Despite DAP’s assertion, the court denied the petition and allowed the case to proceed.

Often, defendants in mesothelioma lawsuits and other asbestos-related lawsuits seek dismissal by arguing that the lawsuit is baseless. It is common for defendants to argue that their products were not involved in the plaintiff’s asbestos exposure. It is common for defendants to claim that their products could not have contributed to the claimant’s illness. However, in the New York County Supreme Court, such arguments are often denied because the bar for dismissal is high. Defendants are typically required to unequivocally establish that their products could not have caused the claimant’s injury.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as A.J.C.

In a recent court decision, a Chicago jury awarded a mesothelioma victim who used to work as a brick mason $7.4 million in compensation after a two-week trial. Mesothelioma is an aggressive illness that develops after someone is exposed to asbestos fibers. A.J.C. was exposed to asbestos while working as a brick mason at Inland Steel. 30% of the liability was assigned to Foseco who manufactured hot tops for steel manufacturing and the other 70% to an insulation contractor, Paul J. Krez.

According to the evidence presented in court, A.J.C. was diagnosed with mesothelioma in early 2023 when he was 76 years old. While getting treatment at the University of Chicago, A.J.C. embarked on a pursuit for answers. A.J.C. explored his work history for potential asbestos exposure and thought back to when he worked at Inland Steel about six decades ago. A.J.C. recalled being around asbestos during the years he worked in the company. He worked at Inland Steel in 1965 and then served in the army for three years before returning to the steel company. For the rest of his career, A.J.C. worked at Inland Steel. Mesothelioma has a long latency period. It can take up to six decades or more for mesothelioma to develop after asbestos exposure.