Mesothelioma Court Rulings & Legislation

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;

Statute of Limitations for Mesothelioma Cases

June 28, 2022 | Throneberry Law Group

If you recently got a mesothelioma diagnosis or lost a loved one to mesothelioma, you are likely thinking of filing a claim to receive compensation. Mesothelioma occurs after a person is exposed to asbestos, and asbestos exposure is usually caused by negligence. So, it is only fair that mesothelioma victims and surviving loved ones of deceased mesothelioma victims receive compensation.

If you are thinking of filing a mesothelioma claim, you need to know about a law known as the “statute of limitations.” This is a law that limits the amount of time you have to bring your mesothelioma case to court. However, understanding the statute of limitations for mesothelioma cases is not that easy as different factors could affect the amount of time you have to file your lawsuit. For that reason, you need to consult an attorney to ensure you do not wait too long to file your claim.

Understanding the Statute of Limitations for Mesothelioma Cases

The Environmental Protection Agency Proposes Stricter Asbestos Reporting

June 11, 2022 | Throneberry Law Group

Asbestos is a dangerous mineral that causes life-threatening diseases such as mesothelioma. Because of this, there are individuals and organizations out there dedicated to preventing asbestos exposure through advocacy, education, and community. One of these organizations is the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO). In 2020, the organization won the Right to Know Lawsuit. Afterward, ADAO won a settlement agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to ADAO and its partners, the agreement would make sure the EPA conducts its work on asbestos with enough information. Recently, the agency published a related proposal. Here is more information about this proposal.

EPA’s Proposal

The EPA recently proposed a rule that would require importers, manufacturers, and processors of asbestos and asbestos-contaminated products to report all asbestos uses for the last four years. According to the proposed rule, manufacturers or processors of asbestos-contaminated products would need to share information about all asbestos uses, the quantity of asbestos used, and where exposure has occurred. Currently, much of this information is not a requirement. The proposal also covers articles with unintended impurities like asbestos-contaminated talc products.

New Jersey Appeals Court Upholds Sanction Against Ford in Mesothelioma Case

April 18, 2022 | Throneberry Law Group

The NJ appeals court recently upheld a sanction against Ford in a mesothelioma case involving second-hand asbestos exposure. When Mrs. A.C (a name used for purposes of this article) was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, her family filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Company, her husband’s former employer. According to the family, Mrs. A.C developed mesothelioma after inhaling asbestos fibers from her husband’s clothing during the 30 years that he worked as a service manager for the motor dealerships. During the trial, Ford Motor Company withheld evidence in violation of discovery rules, which led to the court imposing a significant sanction. Ford appealed the decision and the sanction, but the NJ state appeals court refused to set the sanctions aside.

For many years, Mrs. A.C’s family had tried to obtain the training manuals for Ford so that they could prove to the court that the company had not warned its workers about the dangers of asbestos in brake dust. Unfortunately, the family was not able to obtain those materials. Instead of producing the information, a corporate representative testified that he could not locate it. He said that none of the manuals were found.

In response, Mrs. A.C’s attorney confronted the representative with a copy of the manual. After the confrontation, the representative confessed that he had seen the manual before and even answered questions about it in previous asbestos cases. After learning that the representative had withheld evidence, the court imposed the sanction that went beyond the jury’s $800,000 verdict.