Articles Posted in Uncategorized

A recent report by Klamath Falls, Oregon-based Herald and News sheds light on the plight of one North Ridge couple struggling to cope with the impact of a 12-year-old asbestos contamination clean up in the backyard of the husband and wife’s dream retirement home. According to the article, officials with the clean up effort promised the couple a two-to-three-year time period to complete the project, but the initiative has lingered on for over a decade.

Situated near the former original campus for Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT), the couple’s North Ridge Estates home is part of 171 acres of land contaminated by a land developer’s botched demolition of OIT buildings constructed with asbestos. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tried for years to clean up the site on its own but had no success.

Area residents successfully litigated a class action lawsuit against the developer, securing $14 million dollars for victims affected by the defendant’s disregard for public safety. While the couple and this story and many others were compensated for their damages, the amount was not enough to allow the pair to settle in a new location.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad recently signed into law a bill that could end up severely limiting access to compensation trust funds set up by asbestos manufacturers for mesothelioma cancer victims harmed by deadly products. Iowa Democratic lawmakers decried the legislation, which one state senator described as containing “trap doors” for mesothelioma cancer victims trying to recover vital compensation for medical expenses and lost wages.

Dubbed the “Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act,” the law aims to reduce what many call “double dipping” by plaintiffs lawyers filing claims victim’s trust set up by asbestos companies as part of their condition for bankruptcy and then filing a separate lawsuit against other entities. The law now requires plaintiffs to disclose certain information within 90 days of filing a claim in an asbestos cancer bankruptcy trust or be barred from any recovery with the trust.

Furthermore, the act focuses on identification of additional or alternative asbestos trusts by the defendant, legal discovery and use of materials, identification of asbestos trust claims by the plaintiff, valuation of claims, and failure to comply with disclosure requirements. Supporters claim the new law will help ensure the money set aside in these trusts will go to deserving victims and the funds will be available for many years to help victims diagnosed with mesothelioma in the future.

New legislation is working its way through Congress that could end up having an enormous impact on compensation recovery options for mesothelioma cancer victims seeking justice for the asbestos exposure. Recently, the House of Representatives consolidated a pair of tort law reform bills targeting class action lawsuit and asbestos bankruptcy trusts to make it harder for plaintiffs to have their day in court.

Last year, the House of Representatives passed the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act and the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017 (FACT) but the bills stalled in Senate committees after consolidation. Even if both houses of Congress approved the bills, then President Barack Obama indicated he would have vetoed the legislation, which would not have the necessary votes to override the veto and become national law.

However, with a new Republican majority in the House and Senate, as well as the White House, the bills are poised to become law after re-submission and passage in the House of Representatives, again consolidated together. While each bills focuses on distinct areas of tort reform, the provisions of the FACT Act poses the greatest threat to victim recovery following a devastating mesothelioma cancer diagnosis.

An Alameda County, California jury recently awarded $10 million to a couple whose lives were severely impacted by defectively produced asbestos cement pipe manufactured by the defendant, CertainTeed Corporation. The complaint, filed in Alameda Superior Court, alleges that the defendant knew for years about the dangers created by its deadly products but failed to warn consumers about the dangers and even went so far as to market the material as a “safe asbestos.”

According to the complaint, the 65-year-old male plaintiff developed mesothelioma decades after working with the defendant’s defective asbestos as a laborer for a California plumbing company. The male-plaintiff used a circular saw to cut and shape the asbestos cement pipe for use in water drainage and other industrial uses.

In the course of cutting, drilling, and grinding the asbestos cement pipes, the plaintiff worked in an extremely dusty environment which caused him to unknowingly inhale the asbestos particles that ultimately lead to his cancer diagnosis. At trial, the plaintiffs’ attorney presented evidence the defendant knew since 1962 the dangers asbestos dust could pose but did nothing to warn potential users about these risks.

A Texas-federal lawmaker recently introduced a bill in Congress allegedly targeting what has been incorrectly characterized as a “lack of transparency” when it comes to who, how, and why claimants receive compensation in asbestos bankruptcy trust funds. Other lawmakers have introduced similar legislation over the years aimed at making it more difficult for mesothelioma cancer victims to follow through with filing claims to receive the vital compensation necessary to pay for medical treatment and cover lost earnings.

House Judiciary Committee and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform member Rep. Blake Farenthold submitted H.R. 906, known as the Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017, along with cosponsors Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Tom Marino, R-Pa. Approximately 100 bankrupt asbestos companies have created trusts over the years to compensate mesothelioma cancer victims, many of which claim they are the targets of frivolous and exaggerated claims aimed at drawing more compensation than deserved.

The bill would require mesothelioma bankruptcy trusts to submit quarterly reports on claims submitted to the organizations, while (allegedly) protecting claimant privacy and personal information at the same time. While former President Barack Obama promised to veto any such legislation while he was in office, the new Trump administration is seen by many as more sympathetic to tort reform and particularly asbestos. According to his 1997 book, “The Art of the Comeback,” President Trump praised the use of the deadly material as a fire retardant, going as far to make claims that criminal elements pushed for legislation to ban asbestos so these entities could then corner the market in asbestos abatement.

The Arizona Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the mesothelioma cancer lawsuit of a man who claims he developed serious health issues from asbestos dust brought home by his father while working in an industrial plant. The case could set an important precedent that would allow thousands of other mesothelioma cancer victims to sue for damages and hold wrongdoers accountable for their careless actions.

Commonly referred to as “take home” exposure, this type of mesothelioma cancer lawsuits is a serious point of contention for asbestos companies trying to skirt responsibility for the harm caused to innocent people. While many states like California, Tennessee, and New Jersey have laws on the books allowing take home exposure victims to hold asbestos companies responsible, Arizona has no such law.

Survivors Continue Claim on Behalf of Deceased Relative

A recent report by an Atlanta news outlet has shed some light on the continuing epidemic of asbestos exposure plaguing Georgia citizens, even as legislators continue to ignore the threat posed by the dangerous industrial material. According to the report, state agencies routinely fail to hire licensed asbestos removers to perform delicate renovations of buildings contaminated by the cancer-causing mineral, putting hard working, ordinary people at risk of developing serious health conditions.

The report claims that many Georgia homes built before 1978 used building materials tainted with deadly asbestos, often in joint compounds used to secure wallboards. As an odorless, tasteless compound, asbestos has been described as a silent killer that catches victims by surprise decades later when deadly diseases like mesothelioma develop.

State Legislators Gut Spending for Oversight Agency

Federal investigators recently opened an inquiry into whether several asbestos clean up companies operating in Massachusetts paid crews fairly for all of the work performed renovating asbestos tainted properties in the Boston area. Over the past few years, the U.S. Justice Department has opened up several investigations into worker mistreatment and wage theft involving hard working clean up crews putting their health and safety on the line to make sure others are not exposed to deadly asbestos.

Over the past five years, Boston has seen a boom in asbestos removal projects to remove the mesothelioma-causing insulation from older building flush with the cheap and once widely used substance. However, many of these projects come with a cost to the workers doing the jobs as well as to the office employees who sometimes continue to work inside buildings while restoration goes on.

The targets of the Department of Justice investigation, Absolute Environmental and Absolute Environmental Contractors Inc., are accused of collaborating to suppress workers’ wages and turn a higher profit. According to grand jury witnesses, the companies in question paid workers two different pay rates, one for union work at about $35 per hour and another for “non-union” at a rate about half as much.

Public workers in Pennsylvania recently scored a major victory after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that state employees can hold their employers accountable for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent asbestos exposure. Typically, state agencies are immune from civil suits under the doctrine of “sovereign immunity” which generally bars claims against the state for certain injuries.

In their ruling for Geier v. Board of Public Education of the School District of Pittsburgh, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld an Allegheny County trial judge’s ruling that state employees can file mesothelioma cancer lawsuits against the governmental entities they work for. Until recently workers could still bring third party claims against other defendants like asbestos companies but were barred from filing claims against other entities like school districts.

The ruling came in part from an earlier case from 2013, Tooey v. AK Steel, that involved a complicated application of the state’s workers’ compensation laws. Under Tooey, injured workers barred from filing claims under Pennsylvania’s workers’ compensation laws could bring civil suits to recover for their damages like medical bills and lost wages.

Over 1,000 mesothelioma cancer victims recently settled claims against the state of Montana over allegations the plaintiffs developed the deadly asbestos-related cancer in a privately-owned asbestos mine. The settlement is the second such largest in the state’s recent history, after a $43 million resolution another group of 1,000 plaintiffs from Libby, Montana agreed to in 2011 as compensation for their own mesothelioma cancer lawsuit.

The latest settlement is the culmination of hundreds of mesothelioma cancer lawsuits filed by local residents against the state, claiming the government failed to protect them from the known dangers of the asbestos-contaminated vermiculite mine located near the town. Plaintiffs from this settlement had not been diagnosed with mesothelioma at the time of the 2011 resolution but have since developed the condition.

Hundreds of Victims Develop Mesothelioma