Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog

Those suffering from mesothelioma in Boston should be encouraged by news that has just come out of London, where thousands of families will now be able to file insurance claims for their conditions.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys have been closely following the news from across the pond, where the nation's supreme court ruled that the insurance liability was induced at the time that the individual was exposed - not when the disease was first discovered.

This is crucial in mesothelioma cases because, as we've discussed on our Boston Mesothelioma Lawyer's Blog, this is a cancer that often doesn't reveal itself for years - usually decades - after the initial exposure. By that time, it is often too late for individuals to seek any kind of effective treatment. In fact, patients usually have less than a year to live.

That leaves their loved ones to pick up the pieces.

In this case, medical insurance companies in England took a gamble by filing the case in the first place, asking the court to make a decision. The companies argued that they shouldn't have to cover someone from the time they were exposed to the asbestos that caused the cancer, but rather from the time the symptoms first began to appear. Of course, that is the difference between a years-worth of coverage and a few decades-worth.

Instead of ruling in their favor, however, the country's supreme court has set a precedent for the victims - and rightly so. In fact, the court noted that there is a clear link between the person's employment and the asbestos exposure that caused the sickness -- that if the courts were to agree with the insurance companies, it would mean huge coverage lapses for workers, particularly those individuals who aren't employed by the same company anymore.

Attorneys for the victims were quoted by CNN as saying they were overjoyed with the court's decision, adding that it will provide comfort to victims and their families, as well as clarity and consistency for individuals who will discover the cancer in the future. That's going to equal financial security for the families of those affected by this awful - and preventable - illness.

In Britain, disease resulting from asbestos exposure is said to be by far the biggest killer in the workplace. In fact, some 5,000 people die of it in England annually. The numbers continue to rise there, as more people discover they have been impacted. It's expected to peak by 2015.

While the ruling doesn't affect Boston mesothelioma patients, we can stand in solidarity that a victory for even one patient is a victory for all patients.

Continue reading "Boston Mesothelioma Lawyers Hail UK Victims' Victory" »

In our daily lives we can be oblivious to the potential harms around us. If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma you might wonder how you were exposed to asbestos and not have know the potential harms.

Having a Boston mesothelioma attorney is critical to getting the award you deserve. Our attorneys have the experience and tenacity to identify the proper arguments and parties in your Boston mesothelioma case.

Simpkins v. CSX is a case where the plaintiff's husband was exposed to asbestos daily while working for the defendant. Upon returning home from work each night, there was asbestos residue on his clothing. This caused his wife to inhale this asbestos and subsequently suffer from mesothelioma. Plaintiff sued her husband's former employer claiming negligence, wanton and willful conduct and strict liability.

In a case for negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence all of the elements of negligence. Plaintiff has to prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, and the plaintiff suffered damages. Simpkins argues that as to her negligence claim, the defendants failed to take the proper precautions to protect plaintiff's husband and their family from the potential "take-home asbestos exposure."

Strict liability is an imposition of liability where the defendant is engaged in ultrahazardous activity. Plaintiff argued that the defendants should be held liable because they were engaged in activities with products containing asbestos.

On the other hand, CSX claimed that no liability can be imposed on them because they did not owe any duty to a third party non-employee who was exposed to asbestos, like the plaintiff. Furthermore, plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant and had never been on the work premises. Because of this lack of a direct relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, defendant argues they had no duty to plaintiff.

This conflict over whether there was a duty involved in this case led the court to analyze the entire concept of duty. In order to do this, the court looked to public policy in their consideration of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The court cites prior case law where this relationship is further analyzed and divided into four separate components. These components are: the reasonable foreseeability of the plaintiff's injury, the likelihood of the injury, the amount effort needed to protect from injury, and the consequences of placing this burden of prevention on the defendant.

What is crucial in this case is the general rule that states that there is no duty to rescue a stranger. However, where there is a special relationship a duty to take these affirmative actions can be created. But the court here explains that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant does not constitute as one of these four special relationships.

Plaintiff in this case proved that her husband worked for defendants and that plaintiff's husband was exposed to asbestos. Plaintiff also showed that it was reasonable to find that her husband carried this asbestos home on his clothing. However, she failed to prove that the defendant knew or should have known that there was an unreasonably high risk of harm to the plaintiff. To prove this, plaintiff would have had to show specific facts that would prove that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of this risk of harm to plaintiff.

Illinois Supreme Court in this case found that in this cause of action for negligence the main issue was whether the defendants could have reasonably foreseen that their actions could cause the plaintiff's injuries. Basically, the defendant's owe a duty of care to foreseeable victims.

In analysis, the plaintiff did prove that the defendant's acts or omissions contributed to the risk of harm to the plaintiff. However the second part of the duty analysis rests on the four components of the relationship discussed above. Because plaintiff did not prove that her injuries were foreseeable this court found her pleadings insufficient and they remanded it to the lower court for further proceedings.

There are so many components to every theory in every area of law. Having an experienced attorney guiding you can give you the peace of mind you need to concentrate on your health.

Continue reading "Are You a Foreseeable Victim in Your Boston Mesothelioma Case? See Simpkins v. CSX Corp." »

When you are involved in a Boston mesothelioma case, questions may arise regarding what your employer's duty was in protecting you from unsafe products. It is often hard to think that you were working with fatal substances and no one warned you. Having an experienced Boston mesothelioma attorney to help investigate the facts and recognize the legal issues in your case is essential to recovering the award you deserve.

In O'Neil v. Crane, the court discusses the issue surrounding the duty employers owe to their employees. The issue is specifically whether a manufacturer has a duty to protect employees from foreseeable harm associated with the products used in the production of their items.

Defendants are manufacturers of valves and pumps used in Navy warships. They would buy external insulation and internal gaskets and packing from a third party in order to produce these pumps and valves. These components used by the manufacturers contained asbestos that harmed the plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff was exposed to these items containing asbestos in her capacity as an employee for the defendants. Plaintiff suffered harm associated with this asbestos and subsequently died.

Plaintiff's estate filed a lawsuit against her former employers for wrongful death, claiming that the defendants should be held strictly liable in addition to negligence because it was foreseeable that their workers would be exposed to and harmed by the asbestos in the components they used in manufacturing the pumps and valves.

Strict liability is a form of liability common in torts, which is classified as a civil wrong. This type of liability is very common in product liability cases because there is no need to prove negligence or intent. In order to prove that the defendant is guilty under strict liability, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is responsible for the civil wrong that occurred which harmed the plaintiff.

On the other hand, negligence requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, that the defendants breached that duty, that the breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, and there were damages.

The question presented to this court was whether the product manufacturer breached their duty to their employees where there were injuries to these employees caused by the products and parts that were made by a third party, but used by the defendant to produce their products.

The Supreme Court of California held that where the employee of a product manufacturer was harmed because of the products of a third-party manufacturer that was used in the manufacturing of the product by the employer manufacturer, the employer was not liable for harm caused to the employee unless the defendant's own products contributed substantially to the harm or the defendant participated in creating a substantially harmful combined use of the products.

The court here indicates that this motion for strict liability would expand on the construction of the concept of strict liability, and they refused to do this. The current law in California imposes this strict liability on manufacturers whose products are defective and cause injury. However, the court distinguishes imposing liability in those cases from the plaintiff's contention in this case where the plaintiff contends that the defendant is liable for not foreseeing the injuries caused by products manufactured by another company.

As to the question of negligence, this court indicated that the manufacturer had no duty to warn of potential hazards in third-party parts used in their manufacturing when the hazards were not integral to the products design. It is considered unlikely that manufacturers would be able to ensure that there were no unknowable risks or hazards lurking in every item they used in the manufacturing of their products.

Therefore, plaintiff lost the case as to the two proposed theories of imposition of liability.

Each state has different laws regarding liability in mesothelioma cases. Having an experienced attorney to make the arguments for you can give you the peace of mind you need to concentrate on getting better.

Continue reading "What Is Employer's Duty in Boston Mesothelioma Cases, O'Neil v. Crane Discusses" »

If you were diagnosed with mesothelioma in Boston as a result of asbestos in the workplace you may be thinking that suing a large company will be no easy feat. Do not get discouraged. Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys have the knowledge and experience to take on the big companies to get you the award you deserve.

Cancer runs rampant in our country but mesothelioma is very unique. Mesothelioma is cancer, usually in the respiratory system that results from exposure to asbestos. Asbestos is a dangerous substance that has been linked to usage in the manufacturing and building industries.

Daley v. A.W. Chesterton is a case that arose because a laborer who was working in the manufacturing sector became ill because of his exposure to asbestos. He was diagnosed with two malignant diseases over a span of 16 years, and he sought compensatory and punitive damages from several parties who were responsible for this exposure.

Compensatory damages are the quantifiable damages that are measured monetarily to replace strictly the financial loss to the plaintiff. In instances where there is injury or disease that resulted because of the defendant's negligence, compensatory damages would be awarded to compensate the plaintiff for the medical bills incurred for treatments resulting from that defendant's negligence. Punitive damages have the intention of punishing the defendant and deterring the negligent behavior, and are awarded for things like pain and suffering.

In Daley, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was charged with the question of whether a plaintiff could bring more than one separate lawsuit where the plaintiff was diagnosed with more than one malignant disease that was the result of the same asbestos exposure.

Pennsylvania has a state statute called the two disease rule. This rule allows individuals to bring separate lawsuits where the plaintiff can prove that he or she was diagnosed with more than one malignant disease that was the result of defendant's negligence.

The plaintiff in this case was first diagnosed with pulmonary asbestosis and squamous-cell carcinoma in his right lung. These diseases can be directly attributed to exposure to asbestos. He sued several parties and obtained a settlement in the mid 1990s.

More than 10 years later, the plaintiff was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma. This cancer can be directly linked to the same asbestos exposure that gave the plaintiff the original diagnosis. Plaintiff then sued several different parties for negligence and cited this two-disease rule.

The defendants in this case argued that the doctrine of res judicata precluded this action. Res judicata is a doctrine surrounding claim preclusion in that a suit cannot be brought if the main issue in the second suit is exactly the same as the first and there are the same parties to the action. Basically, they argued that the plaintiff lost his right to sue these parties in the second litigation when he sued the original parties to the lawsuit because the diseases arose out of the same asbestos exposure.

The court cited that this was incorrect reasoning because none of the defendant named in the second litigation are the same as the defendants named in the first case that was settled in the late 1990s. Additionally, the court discussed this two-disease rule, which is a limited exception to the original cause of action requirements created by the state legislature to provide relief for asbestos-related diseases.

In application, the plaintiff was allowed to sue the different defendants in the second case for a different malignant asbestos related disease arising from the same asbestos exposure that led to a prior settlement for damages associated with a different malignant disease. The plaintiff was allowed to do this because at the time he brought the original claim, he had no knowledge of the existence of the second asbestos-related malignant disease.

Consequently, this court decided that the separated disease rule of Pennsylvania allowed this plaintiff to file a second cause of action for the new malignant asbestos-related disease.

Having an experienced legal team can be very beneficial in navigating your way to the award you deserve.

Continue reading "Daley v. A.W. Chesterton Discusses Remedies for Multiple Diseases Associated with Asbestos Exposure" »

The Meso Foundation, also called The Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, recently announced that it was dedicating another $500,000 toward research for mesothelioma in New England and nationwide.

This is good news for those who have seen how devastating mesothelioma can be to a person. This incurable form of cancer strikes in its advanced ages, years after a person has been exposed to asbestos.

In many cases, our Boston mesothelioma lawyers have seen, people were exposed to asbestos decades earlier without feeling any symptoms. It's not until the cancer is in its later stages that people begin feeling the common symptoms of chest pain, trouble breathing and others that indicate something is wrong.

Since other non-cancer illnesses can sometimes have similar symptoms, patients may ignore the symptoms and don't get themselves checked out. In other cases, people go to the doctor but are unable to get a good diagnosis right away because the medical facility isn't sure what is causing the problem. This only delays treatment.

Sadly, research has shown that once a person gets the diagnosis of mesothelioma, they usually only live another 12 months. Because these tumors can stay largely hidden inside a person's body for so long without symptoms, the slow-moving cancer can cause a quick death.

And that's why researchers are excited that organizations are willing to prove these funds to try to find a cure. The foundation reports that out of 46 different applications for the grant money, they chose five projects.

Officials said they hope that the money will work to find a cure. At the very least, the research may be able to find out more about how the cancer works, why it stays hidden, how it reacts to treatments, such as chemotherapy, and perhaps even how to identify the cancer more quickly.

The projects went through a peer-review process, being reviewed by member of the foundation's board. They looked at what the proposed projects would do, what techniques and form of science they would use and what the stated goal is.

Among the projects that will be completed:

A study trying to combine genomic data of 10 mesothelioma tumors to look at molecular characteristics and defining how defective genes impact malignant cells. This project looks to study which genes are meaningful in disease treatment.

An investigation into how the immune system proteins regulate the response of chemotherapy cell death in mesothelioma cells. Previous work has shown that patients who had low or no levels of a certain protein in their tumor cells had longer time without the disease.

The foundation has now provided $7.6 million in grant money to research this form of cancer. The five new grants bring the total to 76 that have been funded by the efforts of this foundation. Everyone wants to see a cancer-free world. For those with mesothelioma and their families, this research means a lot. Mesothelioma hasn't gotten the type of attention other cancers have, so any money available to research it is important.

Continue reading "Another $500,000 Dedicated to Finding a Cure For Mesothelioma in New England" »