Articles Posted in Asbestos Exposure

Accused of increasing the risk of asbestos exposure in Southborough and Provincetown, three entities have been fined more than $35,000 for reportedly illegally storing the dangerous organic compound.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys are encouraged that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection is actively pursuing such cases, though we would argue that in order to deter future violations, penalties should be markedly increased.

Here’s what we know of this case, as reported by state DEP’s information office:

The responsible parties were CJS Holdings II, Inc., of Southborough, Clifford J. Schorer III of Boston and 2 commercial Street Realty Trust 2008 of Provincetown.

They were all collaborating on renovation work, beginning in March 2010.

Investigators with the environmental protection office carried out an inspection on locations of the Trust’s properties in both Provincetown and Southborough. In doing so, they discovered that Schorer had not only conducted the improper removal of insulation and transite panels that contained asbestos from the Provincetown site, he then brought the waste from those materials to the Southborough site, where he stored it.

The site in Southborough was never approved for this purpose.

What’s more, the way that he stored it is alarming. It was packed haphazardly into regular, household trash bags that were ripped and unmarked.

When the inspectors spotted this, it was ordered that a licensed asbestos contractor be immediately brought on site to remove, package and get rid of all the items containing asbestos that were still on both properties.

The DEP’s acting director was clear in stating that not only property owners but individuals and contract workers who are involved in any type of renovation have to educate themselves on what their responsibilities are in terms of how they are required to handle asbestos removal and disposal. All of it has to be done according to very specific requirements. Failure to do so may not only result in severe fines, but could ultimately expose employees and the public to cancer-causing materials.

When a company or individual is completing renovation work, particularly on an older building that contains asbestos, they have to notify the DEP of their work.

In this case, the three entities will really only be responsible for forking over $4,000. The remaining $32,000-plus is going to be suspended, unless the companies don’t comply with the DEP’s requirements within a year.

Companies that might have questions about how to properly dispose of asbestos material can contact and consult with the DEP. Individuals who suspect that a company or individual may be illegally handling or dumping asbestos materials should contact the DEP and tell them as much information as possible, including who is involved, what you saw/heard/smelled, where it happened and when.

While a single incident of asbestos may not be enough to cause mesothelioma, renovation workers or residents living nearby may suffer repeated exposure that could leave them vulnerable.
Continue reading

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers are nothing if not meticulous.

That’s important for lawyers in any sector of law, but it’s critical in asbestos exposure litigation because many of these cases involve evidence that goes back decades.

An incident stemming from a mesothelioma win in Mississippi illustrates the importance of this.

The plaintiff won his lawsuit against his former employer, only to have that verdict later overturned by the state’s high court because of a technicality.

Here’s what we know of the situation, as reported by CBS Money Watch:

Back in 2010, a man named Troy Lofton sued a company called CPChem. You may not have heard of them, but you’ve probably heard of ConocoPhillips and Chevron Corp. This was a joint venture between the two of them.

Lofton said that the company, for more than two decades, knowingly shipped to the gas and oil well industry a product that contained the dangerous organic compound. He said he suffered through exposure for those 20 years, and as a result, now has to be on oxygen for the rest of his life.

The company didn’t deny that its products contained asbestos – or that they knew about it. But CPChem said that some of the documents used by Lofton’s attorney to prove his case were drilling records that showed the use of asbestos on certain rigs, but did not necessarily correspond to the rigs that Lofton worked on.

A Mississippi jury sided with Lofton, awarding him more than $15 million.

The case was appealed all the way to the state’s Supreme Court.

The high court didn’t rule on the actual verdict, saying whether it was faulty or not. However, it did order a whole new trial, after determining that the man’s mesothelioma attorney’s reading of those drilling records in open court was inappropriate, particularly given that those records weren’t formally admitted into evidence when the company’s medical expert was testifying.

A state Supreme Court justice, writing for the majority, said that although the records were in fact written by Lofton’s former employer, his attorney didn’t do enough to prove that they were applicable to the wells on which Lofton worked.

While this decision is indeed disappointing, one positive aspect was they way they ruled regarding Lofton’s statute of limitations.

Lofton had been diagnosed with a lung disease way back in 1993. But at the time, he had no idea why he was sick.

The three-year statute of limitations during which he had to file suit should have expired in 1996, the company contended. Instead, he filed his lawsuit in 2003.

But how could he have filed his lawsuit against anyone by 1996 when he didn’t know until 2003 that anyone else might have been responsible?

He couldn’t have, and the state’s Supreme Court agreed with him at least on this point.
Continue reading

Companies responsible for asbestos exposure in Boston and throughout the country use every possible tool at their disposal to divert the focus from their liability for mesothelioma sickness and death.

The latest involves smear tactic targeting mesothelioma lawyers, saying their actions are akin to fraud, particularly when there is more than one defendant.

They contend that a number of plaintiffs are greedy, and file against multiple companies in the hopes of getting the largest payoffs possible, without regard for the actual responsibility those companies may hold.

But here’s the truth of the matter: Many of our clients pass away prematurely, before the conclusion of their case. Because of the merciless stall tactics employed by these companies, the litigation can sometimes drag on for years. The families of these individuals suffer greatly, having been deprived of their loved one’s companionship – and income. So are these cases about money? To an extent. We do want to see mesothelioma victims and their families taken care of. They deserve compensation for all they have endured.

However, these cases are also about principle. These companies should be punished for their extreme negligence in failing to protect the public from their products. The latent effect of cases like this is that other corporations who might perpetuate negligent actions in the future think twice when they realize there could be severe financial consequences for doing so.

A recent complaint filed by a sealing company in a North Carolina bankruptcy case alleges that asbestos exposure attorneys committed fraud by claiming two differing versions of how an individual got sick, in order to up the chances of a big pay-out.

We’ll explore the specifics in a moment, but here’s another truth: Decades ago, there were countless products that contained cancer-causing asbestos. It would not be uncommon for a person’s illness to have been caused by exposure to more than one product, as a result of the negligence of more than one company.

Now in this case, Garlock Sealing Technologies has lobbed accusations of fraud against the attorneys of an asbestos law firm, which sued the company back in 2008 in Texas. The basis of that case was the mesothelioma diagnosis of a man named John Phillips. It was contended that Phillips’ sickness was the result of exposure to Garlock products. At the same time, the law firms were reportedly filing suit against another company as well.

Garlock said it paid much more than it would have had it known that the plaintiff was pursuing claims against another company. Had the case gone to trial, that other claim might have affected the percentage of the company’s liability, according to a jury.

They contend that the secrecy surrounding the bankruptcy trust system (in which companies with a high number of asbestos litigation claims file a Chapter 11 and set aside a trust account to pay out the ongoing claims) leaves the system rife for abuse.

However, in the fall of last year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded an extensive investigation and found there was no evidence of fraud.
Continue reading

Boston mesothelioma attorneys are going to have to get even more aggressive in fighting for their clients, following a decision by the high court in Pennsylvania, which could have far-reaching implications.

At issue in Betz v. Pneumo Abex llc. was whether scientific evidence showing that even a slight amount of exposure to asbestos was enough to merit liability in mesothelioma cases.

In a 6-0 opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that it was not.

This gets to the heart of what’s known as the “any fiber” or “any breath” legal theory of causation of who is responsible when someone falls ill – and eventually dies – from mesothelioma, a rare cancer attributable almost exclusively to asbestos exposure.

Essentially, it’s not enough to prove that the individual was simply exposed to asbestos as a one-off situation. A defendant has to show that repeated and negligent exposure was responsible for their cancer.

In most mesothelioma cases this is not going to be a devastating blow because it’s usually not difficult to prove that the responsible party was negligent in its asbestos exposure and further that the individual was repeatedly exposed. A lot of these cases involve former workers whose employers did not do enough to shield them from exposure.

That was the case here in Pennsylvania.

In early 2005, a retired auto mechanic filed a complaint for product liability against Allied Signal Inc., Ford Motor Company and others, alleging that in his nearly 45-year career, he was repeatedly exposed to asbestos in products such as brake linings, that directly resulted in his mesothelioma.

After filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff died, and his wife took over the case.

This was one of a number of similar cases against the same defendants that were pending in the state’s common pleas court. Those defendants anticipated that several of the plaintiffs, including this one, intended to base at least part of their case on the expert legal theory that purports that every single asbestos exposure, no matter how small, contributes to asbestos-related diseases.

These companies wanted to stop that theory from being used in each of these trials, so they filed what’s called a global motion, which would stand in each of the pending Pennsylvania cases. Their stance was that this single-fiber theory of exposure was not rooted in valid science.

Disappointingly, the justices, in a 53-page decision, sided with the companies, saying that it was not enough to show that someone had simply been exposed to asbestos. It had to be shown that the exposure was significant.

Where this becomes a challenge for mesothelioma attorneys is that they now have evidence of the dosage of asbestos to which a person was exposed, proving for example that one company may hold greater responsibility than another, based on the level of exposure.

Of course, this ruling is only valid in Pennsylvania, although Texas has also barred this theory. However, given the precedent that’s been set and the fact that a lot of these same companies are party to cases here in Massachusetts, it likely won’t be long before this issue arises here as well.

That means your Boston mesothelioma attorney must ensure your case is well-researched and solid before moving forward.
Continue reading

Boston mesothelioma lawyers have been following the developments surrounding the case involving Fed-Mogul Global, Inc.

In Boston mesothelioma cases – and really, in mesothelioma cases all over the country – it’s been common over the last 20 years for businesses accused of exposure to asbestos to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

They do this because they otherwise wouldn’t be able to stay in business if they had to pay out even a handful of the past, current and future asbestos exposure claims. So with a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, they can re-organize the business in such a way that they establish an asbestos trust that they regularly pay into.

People who have legitimate claims against that company for asbestos exposure and a subsequent illness, such as mesothelioma, can file a claim for a portion of that trust money.

The idea is to ensure that as many people as possible will be able to obtain compensation for dangerous exposure, rather than only a few complainants sucking the company dry and forcing it to close.

Many companies see handling these cases in bankruptcy court more favorable than having them wrung through the regular tort system, where they would likely be tied up in litigation for decades.

This was the track Fed-Mogul Global Inc. took. This company, the world’s largest manufacturer of automobile parts, as well as 150 of its affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy back in 2001. this was amid some 500,000 personal injury claims against the company for asbestos exposure. At the time, it had spent more than $350 million both defending against and settling asbestos exposure claims. And the claims showed no signs of stopping.

The establishment of a trust through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company asserted, would assure they could pay out as many as possible and still stay in business. As part of that bankruptcy, the company listed as an asset its right to recovery liability insurance on the claims. So in other words, plaintiffs seeking relief from the trust could also go after the insurance companies as well if the exposure happened while the company was covered by a particular insurer.

However, insurance companies bucked this, saying that the contract the insurers had with the company expressly stated that plan would violate the anti-assignment provisions in the contract. In other words, Fed-Mogul Global could not transfer policies or insurance rights without the consent of those insurance companies – which they obviously weren’t going to provide in this case.

So now, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Third Circuit, in a 68-page opinion, has sided with the insurance companies in stating that Fed-Mogul Global could not transfer its responsibility onto the insurance companies.

It’s important to note that while bankruptcy law is intended to permit well-intended, honest debtors to start afresh, it should not be a means for wrong-doers to obtain a safe haven. Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys understand that a bankruptcy does not absolve a company of responsibility for their past actions, and we will fight to gain you the compensation you rightly deserve.
Continue reading

Asbestos exposure in a Boston suburb has resulted in criminal charges, and our Boston mesothelioma Lawyers understand that the 59-year-old landlord is accused of violating the MassLive.com, the incident happened in Grafton, about one hour west of Boston.

The woman is reportedly charged with three violations of the state’s Clean Air Act, and was specifically accused of improperly having asbestos removed from her property.

The defendant in this case purchased a property back in the late summer of 2007. Shortly after her purchase, she sent a formal notice to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. In that notice, she informed them of asbestos that was found in the roofing components, as well as in the wall board. Now unfortunately, many older structures in Boston still contain asbestos, despite the fact that the federal government barred its further use in U.S. products beginning in the 1970s.

But because its use was so prevalent throughout the first and middle part of the 20th Century, asbestos is still being found in a number of residences – especially in older, more established cities, like Boston.

Asbestos exposure can be deadly when it’s inhaled, causing fatal cancers, like mesothelioma. However, exposure doesn’t mean immediate demise. In fact, people may go many years before ever realizing they’ve been put at risk. By the time they are diagnosed with mesothelioma, their life expectancy is significantly reduced.

So when a property owner becomes aware of the asbestos, there are very specific procedures they have to follow in order to remove it. For instance, they have to a hire a contractor who is certified to handle the asbestos removal.

What allegedly happened in this case was that the property owner, back in the autumn of 2009, started paying two prospective tenants to begin renovation work on the property. That renovation work included removal of the siding.

The property owner knew of the existence of asbestos, as evidence by the letter she sent to the DEP back in 2007. And yet, the state contends she did nothing to warn the tenants that the work they were doing was putting them at serious risk for asbestos exposure – and all the illnesses that come along with that.

To make matters worse, the prospective tenant’s CHILDREN were also helping with the work. The landlord knew this too, and yet, stayed mum. These were individuals who had no training in dealing with asbestos, and they didn’t have the proper equipment to protect either themselves or those in the surrounding neighborhood.

In addition, she didn’t give the DEP a heads-up that the work was being started on, as she was required to do by law.

The DEP didn’t become aware of the situation until the landlord hired a private company to dispose of the asbestos-laden material, which was piled up at her property.

The landlord has pleaded innocent to the charges, which include failing to follow proper procedures, improper asbestos storage and failing to give notice of an asbestos-related project.

As of yet, there is no indication that the tenants who did the work have filed a personal injury suit against their landlord, though it appears in this case, they certainly could.
Continue reading