Articles Posted in Boston Mesothelioma

Many occupational diseases are not diagnosed until many years after a worker is no longer employed in the industry wherein he or she was exposed to toxic substances.

We see this very commonly in asbestos litigation, though it is also apparent in cases involving exposure to silica. Both substances cause types of occupational lung disease either through a single severe exposure or repeated, extended exposure. While asbestos is associated with asbestosis and mesothelioma, silica is associated with silicosis and lung cancer.

Per the American Lung Association, silicosis is a disabling, dust-related illness caused by exposure to and inhalation of airborne crystalline silica. It’s often found in mines, foundries, blasting operations and manufacturers of stone, clay and glass. Similar to the physiological damage done by asbestos, silica penetrates the respiratory system and causes scar tissue to develop around the lungs, ultimately impairing the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood.
Continue reading

A Massachusetts company accused by the state attorney general’s office of numerous asbestos-related violations will pay $65,000 for allegedly breaking the law and creating a public health hazard.

According to 22 News WWLP.com, the alleged violations happened during renovation of a multi-family building. The company and its owner were prosecuted by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office after evidence surfaced the company improperly and illegally removed, transported and disposed of the dangerous, toxic fibers during the project.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection sets certain standards for anyone handling asbestos. Before a job even starts, there are specific notification standards for any construction/demolition and renovation of any kind of building. Once the work starts, contractors are required to use special supplies and equipment, as well as to adhere to stringent work safety practices. Those practices include setting up an adequate air filtration system, containment area and a strict protocol of packaging and labeling asbestos waste. If at any time a certain area is contaminated by improper handling of asbestos, removal must be conducted very carefully and according to certain state-issued guidelines.
Continue reading

Asbestos removal or “abatement” as the process is called in the industry is an expensive ordeal, which must be performed by trained professionals who are certified to remove the hazardous material. Workers must be provided with proper protective equipment including respirators or ventilators, and care must be taken to prevent asbestos dust from escaping into the environment where it can harm others in the community.

The reason for all these precautions is asbestos fibers can be deadly if inhaled. They become lodged in the lungs or an outer layer organ tissue known as the mesothelium where they metastasize into mesothelioma, lung cancer or other respiratory illness.

According to a recent article from Mass Live, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is suing an Oxford-based company for improper handling of asbestos in a Sturbridge home.
Continue reading

Our mesothelioma plaintiff lawyers understand how dangerous it is to work in an environment where asbestos is present.

According to a recent news article from The Plainsman, the renovation of an Auburn university class building will require asbestos abatement. Solvents used in the installation of the floor tiles, as well as fireproofing materials, have been found to contain asbestos and must be removed during the construction process.

The process to remove asbestos required by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require the title and the asbestos containing mastic to be dissolved with solvents. It would be much faster and cheaper to sand or grind the material, but that would greatly increase the amount of asbestos fibers that are released into the air.

In order to keep workers safe from the vapors emitted from the solvents, an exhaust system must be used that contains HEPA filters designed to trap asbestos fibers, so they are not released outside of the building. School officials are announcing that, just because there may be an odor from the solvents noticeable outside of the classroom, this does not mean there is any danger of asbestos exposure.
Continue reading

One of the most common tactics employed by asbestos defendants is to drag on proceedings as long as possible. The hope is plaintiffs will be so overwhelmed, they will simply give up.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys know the fight sometimes extends even beyond trial phase, as many losing asbestos defendants appeal, hoping to slash the verdict or toss it altogether. Experienced legal representation by attorneys who are dedicated to fighting aggressively for the plaintiff at every phase is critical.

This was recently underscored yet again in the case of
Vanderbilt v. Galliher, where the Delaware Supreme Court ruled a lower court made a mistake in failing to grant a new trial to asbestos defendants on the grounds key witnesses had made derogatory statements in front of the jury.
Continue reading

In Boston mesothelioma lawsuits, a key point that must be made – even before a case can make it to the trial phase – is sufficient proof the condition was caused by the defendant, either through action (producing a dangerous product) or inaction (failure to warn).

Some defendants have worked the time lapse present in most of these cases, as well as the large number of defendants, to their advantage. Symptoms of mesothelioma, a terminal form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, do not appear until decades after exposure. By then, memories fade, records are discarded and it can be difficult to pinpoint exact times and dates. Beyond that, asbestos was used in a wide range of products throughout the 20th Century. For a plaintiff, the challenge is to show there was a significant degree of exposure to the defendant’s product and that it was that exposure which substantially contributed to illness.

In the recent case of Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corp., a trial court had granted summary judgment to the defense, which argued causation – connecting the plaintiff’s illness to exposure to the defense product – was lacking. However, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reversed.
Continue reading

A federal appellate court has affirmed an earlier decision removing a number of mesothelioma lawsuits to federal court, wherein the defendant manufacturer of dangerous products can assert a colorable federal defense for its actions.

In Leite v. Crane Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit indicated the defense had met the burden of proof necessary to show it had a solid case for asserting it was acting under the purview of the federal government at the time the plaintiff injuries were incurred. The appeal was a consolidated effort on behalf of several similarly situated plaintiffs who are and were U.S. Navy veterans.

New England mesothelioma attorneys recognize rulings like this can be a significant blow, though it doesn’t necessarily mean an end. The plaintiff will still have the opportunity to strike down this theory at trial.
Continue reading