Articles Posted in Uncategorized

New York City’s asbestos courts recently issued new orders expanding the rights of mesothelioma cancer victims to seek enhanced damages from defendants for the harm caused by dangerously designed and manufactured products. The order is a reversal of a previous New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) declaration that deferred claims for punitive damages indefinitely and deprived mesothelioma victims the opportunity to hold wrongdoers accountable for their indifference to public safety.

Until this order, claims asking for punitive damages were relegated to the court’s Deferred Docket system under the guise of promoting pretrial settlements to avoid monopolizing the court’s limited resources. Unfortunately, these types of administrative actions can hamper the rights of plaintiffs to fully recover all possible forms of damages. The order had effectively put a stay on claims for punitive damages, until such a time as the court saw fit to reverse the directive.

Currently, asbestos cancer plaintiffs with punitive damages claims in the Deferred Docket system may file an amended complaint within 30-days to either the court’s Accelerated or Active dockets and allow their case to move forward in its entirety. Furthermore, filed complaints not currently seeking punitive damages may be amended to include prayers for such relief, so long as the plaintiffs can show just cause for doing so.

Mesothelioma is a rare and deadly form of cancer, often affecting the thin lining of tissue around the lungs or abdomen, caused by exposure to a flaky white mineral called asbestos. One of the most striking characteristics about the disease is the latency period between asbestos exposure and showing cancer symptoms.

Typically, the latency period for mesothelioma is anywhere from 20 to 50 years after exposure, which can complicate diagnosis since many symptoms present themselves as age-related conditions. Unfortunately, by the time doctors do make a mesothelioma diagnosis, the disease has often progressed to the point where fewer treatment options are available.

However, the latency period for an individual depends on many different factors including age, duration of exposure, and even gender. According to some studies, shorter and less intense exposure to asbestos can contribute to a longer latency period, while longer exposure to asbestos, particularly in certain industrial occupations, can manifest in a shorter latency period.

According to a recent article by the Detroit Free Press, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality may soon go after the city of Detroit, along with demolitions contractors, for health and safety violations over asbestos mismanagement. The article states that the state DEQ traditionally only levied fines against demolitions contractors for violations involving asbestos, but since Detroit has allowed rampant violations to continue and owns many of the properties where the alleged violations took place, the DEQ is within its right to pursue the property owners.

The report claims that state regulators, the city of Detroit, and the Michigan attorney general’s office will sit down at the negotiating table to work out an amicable solution to the issue, which may include both fines and a pledge from the city to adhere to the federal Clean Air Act. The article suggests no timeline for the agreement, but the city claims it is in complete compliance with state and federal asbestos disposal regulations.

Fines for mishandling asbestos during demolition projects in Michigan can range from $2,500 to $40,000, depending on the circumstances of the violation. While the fines may seem steep enough to an independent contractor, municipalities can often afford to cover these costs at the expense of the health and safety of the public. However, given Detroit’s recent financial turmoil, it seems more likely the city will comply with the state’s consent order.

North Carolina state lawmakers recently voted to advance and asbestos claims bill that could potentially place burdensome restrictions on mesothelioma victims attempting to recover vital compensation needed to cover the costs of medical treatment. The House II Judiciary Committee voted 6-4 to advance Senate Bill 470 for a vote in the Senate, setting up a showdown between parties over the extent to which mesothelioma victims may be required to disclose certain information to the courts.

The bill would essentially require a person filing an asbestos cancer lawsuit to also disclose whether or not the plaintiff has also sought or is seeking compensation from one of the dozens of asbestos bankruptcy trusts set up by various defunct manufacturing companies. Supporters of the bill claim that the measure prevents so called “double dipping” by unscrupulous parties attempting to recover double damages for the same injury.

However, few mesothelioma cancer victims in North Carolina have even filed lawsuits in state courts, with all current claims being litigated in federal District Courts in the state with separate rules and procedures. Critics have rightfully called out the bill for what is is, a measure to help the broader asbestos industry and deny and delay dying people the money they need to pay for medical treatment to live a more comfortable and dignified life.

A Missouri state appeals court recently upheld a substantial plaintiff’s verdict in an asbestos cancer lawsuit alleging that the defendant, an industrial parts manufacturer is to blame for the victim’s mesothelioma diagnosis and subsequent death. The defendant sought to overturn a jury’s order to pay the plaintiff’s estate $10 million in punitive damages as punishment for manufacturing engine gaskets containing deadly asbestos fibers.

The plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged that the plaintiff came in contact with asbestos dust from engine gaskets manufactured by Crane, Co. while working as a machinist aboard a World War II era ship. After the plaintiff lost his life to malignant mesothelioma in May of 2012, the victim’s widow filed suit against Crane to recover for her husband’s suffering and loss of services.

At trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and awarded her $1.5 million in compensatory damages but went even further to include $10 million in punitive damages to punish the defendant for knowingly manufacturing such dangerous products. The defendant appealed the verdict in January of 2016, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prevent sufficient evidence linking the defendant’s products to the victim’s mesothelioma diagnosis.

A New York appeals court recently upheld a significant plaintiff’s verdict in an asbestos cancer case against equipment manufacturer Caterpillar Inc., Pacemaker Steel & Piping Co., Millar Steel & Industrial Supply Co. Inc. over allegations that the defendants’ products caused his mesothelioma. The $4 million verdict was a long time in the making for the plaintiff, who had to wait two extra years to finally receive the compensation and justice he deserved for his injuries caused by the defendant’s dangerously designed products.

The mesothelioma cancer lawsuit claimed that the defendant suffered asbestos exposure while working for Chicago-based Chicago Pneumatic and then the New York State Department of Transportation. The plaintiff’s lawsuit alleged that he inhaled asbestos dust from vehicle brakes and mechanical parts manufactured by Caterpillar as well as bags and boards supplied to his employer by Pacemaker.

In 2015, a New York jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff, holding Pacemaker 30% liable for the victim’s injuries and ordered that particular defendant to pay $3 million for the plaintiff’s future pain and suffering. As is common in mesothelioma cancer lawsuits, the defendant appealed the verdict, challenging the jury’s determination of a causal link between the victim’s injuries and asbestos in the products he used.

A three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court recently reversed a Cook County judge’s decision to boot a lawsuit brought by an Alabama family on behalf of their deceased father claiming the victim developed mesothelioma while working in the state. The ruling is a huge victory not only for this particular plaintiff but other asbestos cancer victims attempting to hold wrongdoers accountable and recover compensation for all damages incurred.

The lower court originally made its ruling in December of 2015 in favor of the defendant, Kansas City-based drywall joint compound manufacturer Welco Manufacturing, holding that the plaintiff had not resided long enough in the state to bring the claim. The plaintiffs asserted their deceased relative worked on over 50 job sites over the course of three to four months in 1965, during which time he was exposed to deadly asbestos fibers in the defendant’s drywall compound products.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in in Cook County Circuit Court in 2014 against several defendants including Welco Manufacturing, taking the claim all the way to trial before a jury. Leading up to trial, the plaintiffs settled their lawsuit with all of the named defendants except Welco. During trial, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a clear link between asbestos exposure from the defendant’s product while in Illinois and the victim developing mesothelioma.

The scientific world was recently shocked after six members of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention (COP-8) managed to block the addition of chrysotile asbestos from the Convention’s list of hazardous substances. The block came despite a unanimous recommendation from the Convention’s scientific committee to name the substance to the list, which leading scientists in the field called “ridiculous,” according to reports.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), chrysotile asbestos is a known carcinogen linked to serious health conditions including lung, larynx, and ovarian cancers, in particular mesothelioma. While asbestos has been banned in almost all commercial and industrial applications in the United States, many developing nations rely on the relatively cheap and malleable mineral for numerous applications.

Under the rules of the conference, additions to the hazardous substances list can be blocked by only a single voting member. In this case, six of the world’s biggest asbestos exporters, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Zimbabwe, India, and Syria, all voted to block the deadly carcinogens naming to the list. The veto was hailed by the International Chrysotile Association, an advocacy group that actively lobbies to shut down chrysotile asbestos.

A St. Louis federal jury recently awarded a Wise County, Virginia woman a $110 million verdict over allegations that talcum powder produced by Johnson & Johnson (J&J) contained enough asbestos to cause the victim’s ovarian cancer. The lawsuit is just the latest substantial award given to talcum powder cancer victims but one of the first to allege the product contained cancer-causing asbestos.

Common on the heels of a defense-verdict just a few weeks ago, J&J was hit with its fourth multi-million dollar plaintiff’s verdict in the past year and a half and faces an estimated 2,400 additional claims over similar allegations of ovarian cancer caused by talcum powder. Sadly, pharmaceutical giant J&J refuses to compensate victims for all the harm incurred by the company’s failure to disclose links to deadly cancers.

Much of the jury’s award came in the form of punitive damages, a type of compensation awarded to plaintiffs as a means to punish especially egregious behavior by defendants and serve as a warning to other wrongdoers. Jurors heard testimony about internal J&J research from decades ago about causal links between extended use of talcum powder products and increased risk in developing ovarian cancer.

Missouri could be the next state to adopt so-called asbestos claims transparency laws that could have a tremendous impact on the legal rights of victims struck by a mesothelioma diagnosis due to a manufacturer’s negligence. While supporters of the bill tout the legislation’s cost savings and ability to preserve asbestos bankruptcy trusts for future claims, the reality is that the law would force claimants to disclose sensitive information and make it more difficult to recover much needed compensation.

A set of bills, House Bill 333 and Senate Bill 347, are currently working their way through both houses of the Missouri state legislature but face a deadline at the end of May when legislators recess for the year. However, even if the bill fails to pass this legislative term, many legal experts studying the issue believe the Missouri state legislature would take up the issue early in the next session and eventually adopt the provisions.

Like many other similar pieces of legislation in Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Arizona, and Utah, the Missouri Asbestos Claims Transparency Law would require cancer victims filing claims with asbestos bankruptcy trusts to disclose whether they have filed claims or lawsuits with other parties. The focus on asbestos bankruptcy trusts comes after defense attorneys in a federal asbestos cancer lawsuit alleged that unscrupulous asbestos plaintiffs lawyers somehow manipulated claims, and thereby the system, to enrich themselves.