Mesothelioma Court Rulings & Legislation

J&J Promises to Challenge $18.8 Million Judgement Against it in Talc Case Against Pericardial Mesothelioma Victim

August 11, 2023 | Throneberry Law Group

For purposes of this article, the plaintiff in this case will be referred to as A.H.V.

Johnson & Johnson, the famous American corporation, has been sued by tens of thousands of people for its talc-based products. According to claimants, the company’s baby powder and other talc products sometimes contained asbestos. Asbestos is a dangerous substance that can cause mesothelioma and other fatal illnesses. Most litigation has been halted during bankruptcy proceedings, but J&J faced a setback after a recent ruling. Recently, a California jury decided that a particular plaintiff who filed their case against J&J in 2022 is entitled to $18.8 million for his medical expenses and pain and suffering. This is a lot of money for a company seeking to settle thousands of similar claims. The case proceeded after the U.S. Chief Bankruptcy Judge overseeing J&J’s subsidiary LTL Management’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy allowed it to proceed. The case was allowed to proceed mainly because the plaintiff’s mesothelioma is extremely rare. This makes his case different from most of the other pending cases against J&J.

The plaintiff in this case, A.H.V., filed his legal claim in 2022 after being diagnosed with a rare kind of mesothelioma. A.H.V. said that he developed mesothelioma in the tissue around his heart. This kind of mesothelioma is called pericardial mesothelioma. Research suggests that approximately 350 cases of this form of mesothelioma have ever been reported. According to the plaintiff, he developed pericardial mesothelioma because of the prolonged use of Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder as a child.

The Court of Appeals of Washington Rejects Caterpillar’s Arguments and Allows Navy Veteran’s Widow to Recover $4.5 Million Award

July 22, 2023 | Throneberry Law Group

For purposes of this article, the deceased Navy veteran will be referred to as E.E.

In a recent mesothelioma case, the Court of Appeals of Washington rejected arguments that Caterpillar presented and allowed a Navy veteran’s widow to recover a $4.5 million jury award. Before Navy veteran E.E. died of mesothelioma, he and his wife filed a legal claim against several companies they blamed for the illness. E.E. and his wife claimed that E.E. suffered asbestos exposure because of working with asbestos-contaminated pipe insulation while serving aboard the USS Curtiss. The USS Curtiss was the first purpose-built seaplane tender made for the U.S. Navy. E.E. and his wife also claimed that between 1955 and 1967, E.E. suffered asbestos exposure while working for several employers as a mechanic doing maintenance work on Caterpillar bulldozers. Apart from Caterpillar Inc., all the companies that were sued settled the claim out of court. Caterpillar Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, but the court denied it. This resulted in the case against Caterpillar Inc. proceeding to court.

Unfortunately, the Navy veteran died before his case could be concluded. Fortunately, before E.E. passed away, he recorded a deposition about how he was exposed to asbestos. So in court, the jury listened to this testimony. The jury also listened to testimony from some expert witnesses and a corporate representative of the defendant. After listening to all testimonies, the jury members decided to award approximately $6.5 million in damages. E.E.’s estate was awarded $331,928 for economic damages and $3 million for E.E.’s pain and suffering. E.E.’s wife was awarded $2 million for loss of consortium, and E.E.’s children were awarded a total of $700,000. The $6.5 million award was offset by $1.5 million for other settlements that had already been reached, so in the end, the award stood at $4.5 million.

The Burden of Proof in Mesothelioma Cases

June 16, 2023 | Throneberry Law Group

Asbestos exposure can cause several illnesses. One of the illnesses people develop after suffering asbestos exposure is mesothelioma. According to statistics, around 3,000, new mesothelioma cases are diagnosed yearly in the United States. And while mesothelioma is more common in older people, even younger people can develop this illness. If you or a loved one were diagnosed with mesothelioma, you may be eligible to file a legal claim and seek compensation from negligent parties. However, if you are unable to meet the burden of proof, you may lose your case.

What is the Meaning of Burden of Proof in Mesothelioma Cases?

To date, the only known cause of mesothelioma is asbestos exposure. Asbestos exposure causes mesothelioma when a person inhales or ingests asbestos fibers, and the fibers get attached to the lining of the lungs, stomach, testes, or heart. However, it is up to the victim or their family to prove that asbestos exposure happened. This is what is called the “burden of proof.”

The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit Rejects Company’s Appeal of $36 Million Mesothelioma Verdict

May 24, 2023 | Throneberry Law Group

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

Mr. W.W. was exposed to asbestos during the 1960s and 1970s while working as a pipefitter and union welder for several plants. This was before the dangers of asbestos became known to many. Today, many people know about the dangers of asbestos and the role this substance plays in the development of fatal diseases like mesothelioma and asbestosis. Many years after asbestos exposure, Mr. W.W. was diagnosed with mesothelioma. A month after his diagnosis, he filed a mesothelioma claim against four companies he blamed for his asbestos exposure. Later, Mr. W.W. added thirty more companies to his claim. In 2022, the trial court awarded Mr. W.W. $36 million in damages, with Mr. W.W.’s former employer, Level 3, being ordered to pay $19.2 million. After the trial court made its decision, Level 3 petitioned for a new trial, but that request was denied. The company then decided to file an appeal. In a recent decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit rejected the company’s appeal and allowed Mr. W.W. to recover the damages awarded.

After the trial court awarded Mr. W.W. $36 million in damages, his former employer, Level 3, filed an appeal on several grounds. The company argued that during the original trial, mistakes were made. The company argued that the $36 million verdict was excessive and improper. According to Level 3, the verdict was based on emotion, compassion, and a desire to punish. The company argued that the judgment was not based on the law. In other words, the company claimed that the verdict was an abuse of discretion. Additionally, the company claimed that the trial court assigned them too great a portion of the $36 million verdict. Level 3 argued that Mr. W.W. should not have been allowed to pursue a strict liability argument against them and that the trial court made mistakes in some of their decisions regarding the evidence presented.

A New York Court Rules That a General Contractor Must Face Mesothelioma Victim’s Family in Court

May 3, 2023 | Throneberry Law Group

Asbestos can cause many health problems, including mesothelioma and asbestosis. There are different types of asbestos, and all can cause health problems. People who have suffered asbestos exposure and developed severe health problems have the right to take legal action against those who are to blame for their exposure. Often, asbestos exposure victims blame their exposure on producers, bosses, and others who had the duty to protect them. The family of such a victim filed a mesothelioma claim against a general contractor who failed to uphold his responsibility to provide workers with a safe working environment. The defendant tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, but the court ruled that the case should proceed to court and be decided by a jury.

After M.F. developed mesothelioma, a lawsuit was filed for his estate seeking compensation from multiple defendants. One of the defendants named in the case is Structure Tone, a general contractor. According to the lawsuit, the G.C. is guilty of negligence and violating NY’s Labor Law 200. Negligence claims in NY are based on a person’s duty to give the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would under the same circumstances. Negligence relies upon an individual having power over the action that resulted in harm. The state’s labor law in question here follows the same principles. In this case, the plaintiff claims that the G.C. failed to provide workers with a reasonably safe working environment and that the failure to provide a safe working environment resulted in asbestos exposure and, thus, the development of mesothelioma.

The general contractor filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that it could not have contributed to the victim’s illness. According to the courts, a party facing negligence accusations in a mesothelioma claim or another similar claim can have the case dismissed if they can unambiguously show they could not have played a part in causing the victim’s injury or illness. In other words, they can have the case dismissed if they provide evidence that convinces the court, without any doubt, that they couldn’t have contributed to the victim’s injury or illness. According to the G.C., M.F.’s testimony didn’t show he had suffered asbestos exposure at the locations he could remember working. The company’s executive V.P. also provided testimony that the company and its subcontractors hadn’t used asbestos-contaminated materials.

Pennsylvania Court Allows Mesothelioma Lawsuit to Proceed Against Employer

April 15, 2023 | Throneberry Law Group

The Pennsylvania Common Wealth Court recently ruled that the exclusivity provision of the Pennsylvania state Occupational Disease Law applies to diseases that appear within four years and not to those with a long latency period like that of mesothelioma. This decision came after the University of Pittsburgh, also known as Pitt, one of the defendants in a mesothelioma claim, argued against a claim filed by an engineer who worked in the school, stating that they were protected from the claim by law.

The engineer worked at Pitt for 39 years, and during his time at the university, he was exposed to asbestos-containing products. According to the suit, the engineer suffered asbestos exposure until 2004 and only discovered he had mesothelioma in 2019, 15 years after exposure. The engineer filed the initial lawsuit. Sadly, he died before the case was concluded. The executor of the engineer’s estate took over the case.

The University of Pittsburgh filed a motion for summary judgment in response to the claim. The university argued that the exclusivity provision of the state’s Occupational Disease Law protects them from the claim. Pitt argued that the engineer could only file a Workers’ Compensation claim. The court rejected this motion, and the university appealed that decision. The Supreme Court then ruled that the law’s exceptions were not applicable in this case.

Court Denies Petition for Veterans Mesothelioma Claim Based on Nuclear Submarine Asbestos Exposure to Be Dismissed

February 11, 2023 | Throneberry Law Group

For purposes of this article, the defendant, in this case, will be referred to as A.O.H.

Veterans are at a high risk of developing asbestos-related illnesses like mesothelioma. This is especially true for people who served in the military between 1935 and 1975. According to research, it was at this period that asbestos use in the military was at its highest. The military favored using asbestos-contaminated products because this material is fire-resistant and highly durable. In particular, navy vessels, such as submarines, had many asbestos products. As a result, thousands of veterans who worked on navy vessels have developed asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma. Mr. A.O.H is just one example of the many U.S. veterans who have developed mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos while serving in the U.S. Navy aboard nuclear submarines.

Mr. A.O.H. was diagnosed with mesothelioma three years ago. After his diagnosis, he and his spouse filed a lawsuit against Armstrong Pumps. Mr. H blames Armstrong Pumps for his asbestos exposure while he was part of the U.S. Navy aboard nuclear submarines. Specifically, A.O.H. blames his mesothelioma on the Armstrong pumps he worked with. The pumps were located close to where Mr. H used to work, and his work included supervising the maintenance of the pumps.

Ford Fails to Have a Mesothelioma Lawsuit Dismissed

November 4, 2022 | Throneberry Law Group

The Supreme Court of the State of New York recently denied a petition from Ford Motor Company asking the Court to shut down mesothelioma lawsuit against them. When the defendant in this case, who for purposes of this article will be referred to as J.S., discovered he had mesothelioma, he and his spouse filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company. According to the lawsuit, the company is responsible for J.S.’s exposure to asbestos-containing parts during his years at a dealership in Orchard Park. What is interesting about this case is that Ford did not deny that the parts J.S. was dealing with were asbestos-contaminated. The company also didn’t deny the fact that asbestos is a toxin.

After J.S. discovered he had mesothelioma at age 65, he filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company, the company responsible for his asbestos exposure, thus, his illness. According to J.S.’s lawsuit, he worked as a delivery man for the dealership in Orchard Park. During his time in this position, J.S. was exposed to asbestos-containing dust when he unlocked boxes and dealt with brakes and clutches from Ford. In his claim, J.S. also stated that he had maintenance, cleaning, and sweeping duties during his time at the dealership. On top of that, J.S. stated in his lawsuit that he suffered asbestos exposure through his interaction with mechanics performing clutch and brake jobs.

The defendant did not deny that J.S.’s work involved dealing with asbestos-contaminated products. The company did not deny that asbestos is dangerous and can cause illnesses. Ford’s argument was focused on whether J.S.’s closeness to their parts was enough to result in him developing his illness. The company’s argument centered on whether chrysotile asbestos caused risk compared to amphibole asbestos. Also, Ford Motors argued that therapeutic radiation could have caused J.S.’s illness.

Mesothelioma Wrongful Death Claims

September 9, 2022 | Throneberry Law Group

A mesothelioma wrongful death claim is a claim that is filed after a victim passes away. It is a type of claim that allows surviving family members to recover compensation from negligent parties, such as manufacturers of asbestos-contaminated products. Mesothelioma wrongful death claims are typically filed against individuals and companies who knew that certain products were dangerous but failed to give a warning. The following is more on mesothelioma wrongful death claims.

Who is Allowed to File a Mesothelioma Wrongful Death Claim?

In a mesothelioma personal injury claim, the plaintiff, that is, the person bringing the claim and seeking compensation, is usually the patient who has suffered harm because of the negligence of another party. When it comes to wrongful death claims, the patient is not the one bringing the claim and seeking compensation as they are not alive.

California Woman Receives $43 Million Award in Mesothelioma Case

July 15, 2022 | Throneberry Law Group

After two weeks of in-person trial, a Los Angeles County jury awarded a 64-year-old woman diagnosed with mesothelioma $43 million on May 20, 2022. This verdict is among the largest seen in recent years. The woman, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2019, blamed Algoma Hardwoods Inc. for her condition.

According to the evidence presented, the 64-year-old California woman never directly worked with the toxic substance known as asbestos. However, her husband used to work in a capacity that exposed him to asbestos. He worked with doors that contained asbestos. The asbestos dust from the doors got stuck in his skin, hair, and clothes, and he brought this dust home. Even though the woman sometimes assisted her husband on-site, most of the asbestos exposure she suffered was from the asbestos dust her husband brought home. According to a family representative, the 64-year-old woman suffered asbestos exposure while doing her husband’s laundry. Also, just being inside the home exposed her to asbestos.

From 1977 to 1980, Algoma made fire-resistant asbestos-contaminated doors. The jury found the company 50% liable for the 64-year-old woman’s mesothelioma. The jury then assessed comparative fault against other defendants. The following is a breakdown of the percentage of responsibility each defendant was awarded;