Articles Posted in Uncategorized

A study conducted by the University of Alabama at Birmingham and recently published in medical journal Lung Cancer suggests adding zoledronic acid to treatment regimens may help mesothelioma cancer victims combat the rare and deadly lung cancer. The drug is in a class of bisphosphonates commonly used to treat osteoporosis and prevent skeletal fractures in cancer patients. Researchers believe the drug may be particularly useful for treating patients in the later stages of malignant mesothelioma.

According to the study, the drug reduced the buildup of fluid in the lungs, known as pleural effusions, and helped growth of new tumor blood vessels in animal trials. Zoledronic acid may help block cell signaling pathways essential for the growth of cancer cells. Although the drug may not be the knockout punch to kill mesothelioma tumors, the research suggests zoledronic acid, sold as Reclast or Zometa for bone disease, can help put the brakes on tumor growth.

Researchers evaluated a number of factors including the patients’ levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and biomarkers mesothelin and osteopontin. Clinicians used positron emission tomography (PET) imaging to track the patient’s’ response to the drug. Patients who failed to respond to treatment were found to have already higher levels of VEGF and osteopontin prior to treatment.

After almost 50 years in the same building at the Municipal Center in Princess Anne, Virginia, the city of Virginia Beach is finally prepared to move its seat of government to a new City Hall, one that is free of asbestos. In fact, city employees were finally able to convince the powers that be that the time was right to make the move by highlighting the dangers the asbestos-laden insulation and floor tiles could pose to municipal workers doing the city’s business.

The City of Virginia Beach Facilities Engineer recently released a short video detailing some of the issues plaguing the half-century old structure including central heating, the electrical grid, plumbing, insulation, and how they all are hampered by asbestos-related concerns. While the asbestos in the building does not pose a threat to workers in the material’s current form, even modest repairs or alterations to some of the building’s core systems could result in a serious environmental hazard.

Were the city to attempt any repairs, the entirely building would likely need to be evacuated to ensure innocent people did not come in contact with cancer-causing asbestos. Unfortunately, there have been far too many stories of public and private sector workers developing serious health problems, particularly mesothelioma, from inhaling asbestos and other carcinogenic debris while working in buildings undergoing renovations.

A recent report by KXAN revealed that as many as 120 workers for the city of Austin, Texas were likely exposed to asbestos during renovations to offices at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport’s Maintenance Complex Building. As a result, eight construction workers directly involved with the renovations where the asbestos was reported will receive lifetime medical monitoring to ensure any adverse health events are diagnosed and treated immediately.

According to the news outlet’s investigation, preliminary surveys of the work area showed no asbestos contaminated building materials, but some workers raised concerns to supervisors early on into the renovations. Unfortunately, these concerns were dismissed by management, citing the aforementioned survey that failed to show any trace of asbestos in the building.

Sources quoted in the article claim that workers discovered carcinogenic black mastic adhesive underneath carpet and tile and demanded the work be stopped and the area cordoned off to prevent any asbestos from contaminating the facility. However, the work continued as scheduled during February and June 2016. Black mastic is a type of adhesive once commonly used to bind tiles to the floor.

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.