Articles Posted in Mesothelioma Court Rulings & Legislation

For purposes of this article, the claimants in this case will be referred to as S.S and B.S.

In a recent court decision, a Rhode Island judge ruled in favor of two plaintiffs, S.S. and B.S., a couple pursuing justice against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) in a mesothelioma lawsuit. S.S., a mesothelioma patient, and B.S., her husband, filed the lawsuit against more than 40 defendants, including two subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson, who they blame for negligently exposing her to asbestos through their talc products. J&J and the two subsidiaries petitioned the court to substitute two other subsidiaries, but the judge presiding over the case denied the request.

S.S. and B.S. filed a lawsuit in March this year, citing exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products as the cause of S’s mesothelioma. Among the many defendants, the two named in their lawsuit were LLT and Old Holdco, two J&J subsidiaries. Johnson & Johnson is facing many asbestos-related lawsuits, so to shift its legal focus, the giant pharmaceutical company tried to substitute two other subsidiaries. J&J asked the court to assign its liabilities to Pecos River Talc LLC and Johnson and Johnson Holdco Inc. J&J’s request was rooted in a corporate restructuring process the company claimed shifted its talc-related liabilities. In other words, according to Johnson & Johnson, Pecos and Johnson and Johnson Holdco are the defendants that should have been named in the lawsuit.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as T.W. and his wife as J.W.

In a recent court decision, a judge denied a defendant’s motion for summary judgment and allowed a widow to proceed with her mesothelioma wrongful death claim. After J.W.’s husband died of malignant mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive form of cancer, she filed a wrongful death claim against the companies she blames for negligently exposing her husband to the asbestos that caused his illness. Among the many companies named in the lawsuit was Crosby Valve, LLC. This defendant tried to have the case dismissed by filing a motion for summary judgment. However, the judge presiding over the case denied that request.

According to Mrs. J.W.’s lawsuit against Crosby Valve, her husband suffered asbestos exposure in gaskets the company had recommended using together with their valves. The defendant argued that the widow had failed to prove that her late husband had been directly exposed to any asbestos products they had manufactured. Crosby argued that it was not obligated to warn about the dangers of third-party products used in combination with their valves.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma widow, in this case, will be referred to as E.M. and her late husband as R.M.

In a recent legal development, a widow convinced a federal judge to return her lawsuit to local courts, defeating the defendant’s attempt to shift the case to federal jurisdiction. E.M. faced a heartbreaking loss when her husband, R.M., died from mesothelioma. After her loss, she filed a lawsuit against several companies she blames for her husband’s death. However, one defendant, Foster Wheeler (F.W.), tried to shift the case to federal court using the federal officer removal statute. E.M. successfully argued that her case was not connected to Navy vessels, convincing the court to let her case remain in local courts.

Mrs. E.M.’s husband, Mr. R.M., died in August 2023 from mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure. Asbestos is a harmful mineral that was once widely used in construction, shipbuilding, and manufacturing. This rare and aggressive illness affects the mesothelium, the protective layer surrounding most internal organs. Mrs. E.M. filed a mesothelioma claim against the companies she blames for her husband’s death in November of the same year. In her lawsuit, she indicated three locations where her husband was exposed to asbestos, one of them being Lockheed Shipbuilding Company. One of the defendants responded by asking Mrs. E.M. to share details about her husband’s employment history and worksites. E.M.’s responses did not mention any ships her husband had worked on or if he had worked on vessels or land. Later, she requested details about the company’s work at the Lockheed site.

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

In a recent court decision, a mesothelioma victim prevailed against North American Honda Motor Co. Inc (Nissan) and was awarded $600,000 in damages. After M.C.W. was diagnosed with mesothelioma, he and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against several defendants he blamed for having exposed him to asbestos. Mesothelioma is an aggressive and fatal form of cancer that is caused by asbestos exposure. After hearing his case, a New York jury awarded him $300,000 for past pain and suffering and an additional $300,000 for future pain and suffering.

Mr. W’s case followed a pattern that is familiar to many mesothelioma victims. In many cases, mesothelioma victims face asbestos exposure from multiple sources. In M.C.W.’s initial lawsuit, he named several high-profile companies, including BMW of North America, American Honda Motor Company, American Biltrite, Ford Motor Company, Amchem Products, and General Electric. Some of these cases were dismissed during legal proceedings after the defendants filed petitions for summary judgment. Others were resolved through out-of-court settlements, which is how most mesothelioma claims are resolved. In the end, the only remaining defendant was Nissan.

For purposes of this article, the deceased mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as R.L.S. or Mr. S and the widow as Mrs. S.

In a recent court decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled in favor of a widow pursuing a wrong death claim after losing her husband to mesothelioma. R.L.S. was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma after suffering asbestos exposure while working with Penelec for over 20 years. Before his death, Mr. S and his wife filed a lawsuit against Penelec. After Mr. S died, his wife amended the complaint to include a wrongful death claim. Though Penelec’s insurance company contested its obligation to defend the employer against the claims, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled in favor of the widow and allowed the case to continue. This case highlights the complex way that insurance companies handle mesothelioma claims against victims’ employers.

After Mr. S’s diagnosis, he and his wife filed a lawsuit against Penelec for Mr. S’s occupational exposure. They alleged negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, and failure to monitor medical risks. The lawsuit also included a claim for loss of consortium for Mrs. S. Sadly, R.L.S. passed away before his claim was resolved. After his death, his wife amended the complaint to include a wrongful death claim. The claim seeks damages for herself and her children. Penelec’s insurer, Continental Insurance Company, initially defended the employer but later withdrew, arguing that it was legally excluded from the lawsuit. Basically, what this means is that the policy did not cover such claims. According to the insurance company, Mr. S’s claims fell outside the scope of its liability. The insurance company cited the state’s workers’ compensation laws as grounds for exclusion.

After a mesothelioma diagnosis, the victim or their family can file a lawsuit against the parties they blame for the asbestos exposure that led to the diagnosis. However, filing a mesothelioma lawsuit after the statute of limitations has expired can greatly affect the outcome of the case. A statute of limitations is a law that sets the length of time claimants have to file their lawsuits. Failing to file your mesothelioma lawsuit within the statute of limitations can lead to the dismissal of your case. It can lead to you losing your right to seek compensation regardless of the strength of your case. Read on to learn more!

What Is a Mesothelioma Statute of Limitations?

A mesothelioma statute of limitations defines how much time a patient or their family (in case the victim passes away) has to file a lawsuit. The statute of limitations for mesothelioma lawsuits varies from state to state. In the U.S., the statute of limitations for mesothelioma cases ranges from one to six years. Many states have a mesothelioma statute of limitations of two years.

Recently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) took a firm stand against giant pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson (J&J) after the company tried to file for bankruptcy again. Johnson & Johnson is facing mesothelioma and ovarian cancer lawsuits from tens of thousands of victims who blame the asbestos-contaminated talc in the company’s famous baby powder for their illness. To address these claims, J&J has repeatedly attempted a controversial strategy of filing for bankruptcy. Many people thought that J&J’s latest bankruptcy filing attempt would succeed. However, the DOJ intervened in the case and filed a motion to dismiss the company’s bankruptcy case.

Johnson & Johnson has followed in the footsteps of many asbestos companies facing lawsuits from mesothelioma and ovarian cancer victims. The pharmaceutical giant has filed for bankruptcy a number of times in an attempt to settle the tens of thousands of claims it is facing. All the claimants blame the company’s talc-based baby powder for their illness. They claim that the baby powder was contaminated with asbestos, a substance that is known to cause various illnesses, including mesothelioma and ovarian cancer. However, according to the U.S. Trustee, Johnson & Johnson is trying to abuse the bankruptcy system. The Trustee noted that J&J’s bankruptcy filing differs from standard asbestos trust funds since the company is not in need of bankruptcy relief. The Trustee noted that J&J is not in genuine financial distress.

Johnson & Johnson’s strategy involves filing for bankruptcy through a subsidiary called Red River Talc LLC. Pointing to this subsidiary, the U.S. Trustee said that it serves no legitimate purpose and seems solely designed to protect J&J, a company that is financially stable and cannot provide a conformable plan of reorganization. This is Johnson & Johnson’s third time attempting to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, a bankruptcy chapter that is meant for companies facing genuine financial distress. According to the Trustee, this third filing is no different from the previous filings that the court rejected for similar reasons.

For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as J.S. or Mr. S.

This case is about a construction worker, J.S., who worked at the Todd Shipyards for years and was later diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer that is primarily linked to asbestos exposure. In his lawsuit, J.S. names multiple companies as defendants. He blames these companies for having negligently exposed him to the asbestos that led to him developing his illness. His case has involved demands for records from him and requests for dismissal from the case from many companies.

According to Mr. S, his mesothelioma stems from exposure to asbestos-contaminated products used in ship construction and repair at Todd Shipyards between 1960 and 1964. While working at Todd Shipyards, the mesothelioma victim was exposed to equipment from Foster Wheeler, including marine boilers. He was also exposed to products like DAP joint compound, Kaiser Gypsum, and other materials made with Vanderbilt Talc.

In a recent court decision, an asbestos contractor in Jefferson County, Colorado, was found guilty of several crimes after his fraudulent and careless acts endangered his workers, a client, and a whole neighborhood. The contractor’s actions put his employees, the client, and the entire neighborhood at risk of developing mesothelioma in the future. The contractor handled asbestos removal poorly and charged the client $70,000 for the poor work. Asbestos is a well-known health hazard, and its removal requires strict adherence to safety protocols. Failure to abide by the set guidelines can result in severe consequences.

The 82-year-old owner of a fire-damaged four-unit rental property in Arvada hired the contractor, Lance Slayton, in 2022 to clean and repair the property. This was when the risk of future mesothelioma diagnoses in the neighborhood began. Lance’s work included properly removing asbestos-contaminated materials from the property. However, according to the state attorney general’s office, instead of the contractor handling the toxic material properly, his company ignored safety protocols and removed the dangerous material improperly and disposed of it in an unsafe manner, putting the employees and residents exposed to the asbestos at risk.

Asbestos is generally not harmful when left undisturbed. However, when asbestos is disturbed or damaged, it can release tiny fibers into the air, which, when inhaled, can cause serious health problems like mesothelioma. Mesothelioma, a disease that affects the mesothelium, is a form of cancer that is rare and quite aggressive. After asbestos fibers are inhaled, they can become stuck in the body, causing inflammation and scarring over time. This can eventually lead to mesothelioma, which often has a long latency period. It can take 20 to 60 years or more for mesothelioma to develop after initial asbestos exposure. Because mesothelioma can take so long to develop, the full impact of this incident may not be felt for quite some time.

The outcome of one of the nation’s first talcum powder/mesothelioma trials could determine if Johnson & Johnson agrees to another massive settlement.

The trial, taking place amidst J&J’s ongoing efforts to settle thousands of talc-related ovarian cancer lawsuits, involves a male plaintiff who alleges he developed mesothelioma due to inhaling asbestos allegedly present in Johnson’s Baby Powder.

Evan Plotkin argues he developed mesothelioma in 2021 at the age of 64 after years of using talc-based cosmetic products, however J&J, which denies its talc products ever contained asbestos, maintains his mesothelioma likely did not develop from asbestos exposure but rather from a family medical history that supposedly made him more likely to get cancer.

Contact Information