Top 100 Trial Lawyers badge
BBB Accredited Business badge
Multi Million Dollar Advocates Forum badge
10 Best Attorney badge
top 10 trial lawyers badge
RUE Ratings Best Attorneys of aAmerica Badge
Veteran Approved Badge
Americas Top 100 Attorneys Badge
Lawyers of Distinction Badge
American Association for Justice Badge
Best Law Firms of America Badge
Top American Lawyers Badge
NADC Badge

An Ohio appeals court recently revived an asbestos cancer lawsuit brought by the widow of a mesothelioma cancer victim who claimed that he developed a rare and deadly form of lung cancer from years of exposure to asbestos while working with the Bendix brakes. After a Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas granted the defendant, Honeywell International, Inc., summary judgment in 2017, the Eighth Appellate District in Ohio agreed with the plaintiff that the lower court erred in its decision and that there were genuine issues of fact about the case for a jury to decide in a court of law.

According to the asbestos cancer lawsuit, the plaintiff’s widow alleged that her husband developed mesothelioma from using Bendix brake products developed by Honeywell International while working as a supervisor for a company that manufactured intercity buses. The plaintiff presented testimony from the victim’s coworker that stated the victim spent significant time in the area of the facility where brake work was being done, where asbestos fibers from the defendant’s Bendix brakes were present in the air. Further, the plaintiff claimed that her husband was exposed to asbestos fibers during the time he worked in the area of the facility where Bendix brake linings were grounded.

Fortunately for the plaintiff, the Ohio appeals court agreed that the case should be heard by a jury and gave the victim a chance for his case to be heard in court, six years after his passing in 2014. The case is yet another example of the lengths to which gigantic companies will go in order to skirt liability for the harm caused by the products they knew or should have known could pose a health risk to workers and the general public.

Pharmaceutical and cosmetics giant Johnson & Johnson recently agreed to a significant settlement to resolve over 1,000 talcum powder asbestos cancer lawsuits claiming that plaintiffs developed serious forms of cancer, including mesothelioma, as a result of exposure to deadly carcinogens in the company’s talc-based products. The terms of the settlement, the first major settlement during the years of litigation related to the cases, calls for Johnson & Johnson to pay more than $100 million in total to the group of plaintiffs, but still leaves thousands more cases unresolved.

According to securities filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Johnson & Johnson faces an estimated 20,000 other asbestos cancer lawsuits from plaintiffs who claim that they developed cancer from years of using the company’s iconic Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products. This year, despite maintaining that its products are safe for consumers, Johnson & Johnson announced that it will cease all sales of talc-based Baby Powder in North America, while continuing to sell the original formula with talc in overseas markets.

Many lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson allege that the talc-based Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products are contaminated with carcinogenic asbestos fibers, which are directly linked to developing mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a rare and deadly form of cancer that commonly affects thin linings of tissues surrounding vital organs such as the lungs, heart, and abdominal cavity. While researchers and scientists across the globe continue to search for a cure and make progress developing therapeutics to help mesothelioma patients, there is still currently no cure for the disease and patients are often left with months to live by the time a diagnosis is made.

Georgia-Pacific LLC recently pledged to advance $1 billion to an asbestos liability trust fund to compensate victims who developed mesothelioma and other asbestos-related cancers as a result of exposure to asbestos caused by one of the company’s subsidiaries. Georgia-Pacific’s affiliate, Bestwall LLC, is currently embroiled in bankruptcy proceedings as part of reorganization proceedings to free the parent company from the legal liability from the subsidiary, which it purchased in 1965.

During its history, Bestwall LLC, formerly known as Bestwall Gypsum Company, manufactured asbestos containing products such as gypsum wallboard, acoustical plaster, joint compounds and drywall adhesives. Bestwall used asbestos, as many companies did for decades, due to the mineral’s heat-resistant properties which allowed it to be molded to fit a variety of industrial, commercial, and military applications.

Unfortunately for workers and consumers, asbestos is a known carcinogen that is directly linked to developing mesothelioma, a rare and deadly form of cancer that commonly affects the thin linings of tissues surrounding the lungs, heart, and abdominal cavity. Even worse, asbestos companies like Bestwall knew for years about the health risks posed by exposure to asbestos but provided no safety precautions or warnings to manufacturing workers, those working with the materials, or consumers about the risks associated with the carcinogenic products. Sadly, thousands of Americans every year receive a mesothelioma cancer diagnosis, leaving most of them with just months to live and few treatment options to improve their prognosis,

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently gave approval to the first new mesothelioma drug treatment combination for patients in the last 16 years. The drug combination, Opdivo (nivolumab) in combination with Yervoy (ipilimumab) are a first-line treatment for adults with malignant pleural mesothelioma that cannot be removed by surgery.

“Today’s approval of nivolumab plus ipilimumab provides a new treatment that has demonstrated an improvement in overall survival for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma,” said Richard Pazdur, M.D., director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence and acting director of the Office of Oncologic Diseases in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “In 2004, FDA approved pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin for this indication, and now patients now have an important, additional treatment option after more than a decade with only one FDA-approved drug regimen.”

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a serious form of cancer that affects the lining of the lungs, and is caused by exposure to carcinogenic asbestos fibers. According to the FDA, about 20,000 Americans develop malignant pleural mesothelioma each year and accounts for most of the mesothelioma cases recorded. Furthermore, most of the patients diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma are not able to have their tumors operated on and this prognosis creates a generally poor survival rate.

Dozens and potentially hundreds of plaintiffs in asbestos cancer lawsuits in New York state have been left in a bind after Governor Andrew Cuomo enacted serious budget cuts to the states’ court systems as a cost saving measure due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The $300 million in cuts to the New York state court system went into effect back in September 2020, after the governor used his executive authority to compensate for the shortfall in his state’s revenue due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Under New York state law, all judges over 70 years old must be recertified every two years by the state court administration. The interplay between the recertification process for judges and the state’s budget shortfall means that  four dozen judges did not receive their recertification, in order for the state to save the state money, and will no longer be hearing cases from the bench as of the start of the new year. Estimates put the savings to the state at around $55 million over the next two years from the court system but these will likely have a significant impact on the plaintiffs awaiting trial.

As a result of these actions by New York state, hundreds of asbestos cancer plaintiffs will have their cases pushed back by weeks or even months and years. Unfortunately, time is not a luxury that many asbestos cancer plaintiffs have, as their mesothelioma cancer diagnosis leaves them with just months to live by the time their doctors inform them of their prognosis. Sadly, many are likely to never have their day in court to confront the asbestos companies that caused their terminal cancer diagnosis.

A New York court recently denied an attempt by the defendant in a talcum powder mesothelioma cancer lawsuit to have the case dismissed, which paves the way for the plaintiffs to have their day in court and seek justice for the harm caused by the defendant’s alleged negligence. In its ruling, the court denied defendant Whittaker Clark and Daniels’ motion for summary judgement to dismiss the claim, as well as denying the company’s bid to have claims of potential punitive damages thrown out.

According to the plaintiff’s mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, filed in New York County Supreme Court, the victim developed mesothelioma for exposure to asbestos fibers in talcum powder products manufactured by defendant Whittaker Clark and Daniels. The plaintiff claimed that during his time working as a barber in New York City from 1961 until he retired in 2016, he frequently breathed in talcum powder dust from the Clubman talc he applied to clients, which he alleges the defendant knowingly manufactured with asbestos fibers.

In its motion to dismiss the case, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff’s mesothelioma diagnosis was not caused by exposure to talc in Whittaker Clark and Daniels’ Clubman talcum powder, but instead by exposure to asbestos in the victim’s native Italy where he lived until he was 25 years old until he immigrated to the United States. Specifically, the defendants claimed that the victim was exposed to asbestos in quarries found in Sicily, Italy. Countering that argument, the plaintiff’s lawyers contended that the victim lived almost 15 miles from the sites in question.

A Sweedish pharmaceutical company recently announced it has seen positive results with a therapeutic cancer vaccine that could potentially be used in combination with other immuno-oncology drugs to treat metastatic malignant mesothelioma. The results of the clinical trials showed that more than half of the participants did not demonstrate disease progression, and none of the patients experienced unexpected safety issues which showed that the drug combinations were well-tolerated.

Drugmaker Ultimovacs ASA conducted the study on a group of 20 mesothelioma cancer patients who received a combination of the company’s UV1 cancer vaccine and pembrolizumab, PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor. This group of patients participated in the company’s Phase I study for the drug combination, which is designed to test the safety, tolerability, and initial signs of clinical response in patients treated with UV1 in combination with pembrolizumab.

Commenting on the study, Ultimovacs Chief Medical Officer released a statement saying, “The safety profile observed to date in this first cohort of the PD-L1 combination study is consistent with the promising safety profiles seen in our earlier Phase I trials. For the further development of our vaccine, it is important to demonstrate that UV1 can be combined with different classes of immunotherapies without compromising on safety.”

A New Jersey federal judge recently denied a motion to throw out a mesothelioma cancer lawsuit brought by the widow of a man who claimed he developed terminal cancer as a result of exposure to asbestos while serving aboard U.S. Navy ships. With the judge’s ruling, the lawsuit clears an important legal hurdle for the victims’ surviving spouse to hold the defendants accountable for their actions of putting her late husband and potentially other service members at risk for serious health conditions.

According to the mesothelioma cancer lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the deceased victim was exposed to asbestos fibers while serving aboard U.S.S. Charles H. Roan in the 1960s. The source of the asbestos exposure, according to the lawsuit, was from forced draft blowers manufactured with asbestos-containing gaskets manufactured by defendant Westinghouse. Those parts needed periodical replacement, based on specifications by the U.S. Navy.

Additionally, the U.S.S. Roan was equipped with a pair of boilers manufactured by co-defendant Foster Wheeler, which were also manufactured with asbestos-containing parts, including gaskets, sheet, and packing. Those asbestos parts too were expected to be replaced periodically. Both Westinghouse and Foster Wheeler had argued in their motion for summary judgment that the U.S. Navy was in full control of any maintenance, repair, or overhaul of the ship and further dedicated the type of material that needed to be installed or replaced on the vessel.  As a result, both Westinghouse and Foster Wheeler argued that they did not have a duty to warn for asbestos-containing parts manufactured by third parties.

A New York state appellate court recently upheld the verdict in an asbestos cancer lawsuit brought by a widower on behalf of his deceased wife who claimed that the defendant in the case was responsible for her diagnosis of terminal cancer caused by exposure to mesothelioma. The defendant, Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, as Successor to Felt Products Manufacturers, had appealed the jury’s award at trial, which handed down a substantial $75 million verdict on behalf of the plaintiff.

The lawsuit against the entity representing Felt Products Manufacturers, filed in a New York City Asbestos Court, claimed that the victim developed mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos containing Fel-Pro gaskets manufactured by the defendant. The mesothelioma cancer lawsuit claimed that the victim regularly helped her husband remove and change asbestos containing engine gaskets from their vehicles and from taking her and her husband’s dusty clothes into their laundry room to clean.

The jury hearing the case at trial awarded damages of $50 million to the victim for pain and suffering, $40 million for past and $10 million for future; and $25 million to her husband for loss of consortium, $15 million for past, $10 million for future. In appealing that award, the defendant asserted that it was excessive and was unwarranted based on the evidence presented at trial. In hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York vastly reduced the amount of the award, to $12 million for past and $4 million for future pain and suffering for the victim; and for loss of services to $1 million for past, and $250,000 for future damages for her husband.

A Louisiana federal judge recently handed down an important ruling in an asbestos cancer lawsuit brought by the estate of a man who claimed he developed mesothelioma after previously settling with the defendant over other asbestos-related health claims. In her ruling, the Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Louisiana determined that the victim’s settlement agreement with the defendant, Avondale Shipyards, did not preclude him from bringing his most recent claim alleging that he developed mesothelioma while working at the facility.

The asbestos cancer lawsuit was brought by the victim’s family on his behalf. The victim had passed away in 2018 due to complications with mesothelioma, and his surviving family took up the lawsuit on behalf of his estate. Defense attorneys for Avondale Shipyard had previously sought to have the case remanded to a federal court back in 2018, claiming that the federal officer removal statute required the case to be heard in a federal district court because the company acted under the direction of a federal entity.

This time, Avondale Shipyard pointed to settlement agreements the victim had entered into with no less than 37 entities back in 1991 concerning his asbestosis diagnosis. Asbestos is a long term inflammation and scarring of the lungs due to exposure to asbestos fibers, usually from breathing in the material. Its symptoms may include shortness of breath, cough, wheezing, and chest tightness. In both lawsuits, the plaintiff alleged that he was exposed to asbestos fibers during the course of his employment at the shipyard, and sought to hold the defendants accountable for each separate health claim.

Contact Information