Articles Posted in Mesothelioma Case

For much of last century, asbestos producers reaped huge profits from making and selling a product they knew to be deadly to workers and consumers. Humans have used asbestos for thousands of years because it is cheap to mine and naturally resistant to heat, fire, caustic chemicals, and electricity. However, it was during the industrial revelation when large-scale use began in virtually every aspect of industry and construction trades.

While the general public was not told of the dangers of asbestos exposure, producers of the toxic material were very much aware of the harm their products were causing. We know this because documents obtained discovery in mesothelioma litigation revealed industry personal were aware of many of the dangers long before the general public.

One reason these companies were willing to take such risks with others’ safety is because it was also known it would take between 20 and 50 years for workers exposed to asbestos to become noticeably ill. Once a worker developed symptoms and sought treatment, they would only have a short time to live on average. These companies were willing to trade future losses for present day profits, and did not tell workers they were doing this.

By now everyone knows about dangers associated with asbestos exposure, and mesothelioma lawyers are filing lawsuits against these companies on a regular basis. The problem is many of these companies are going bankrupt as result of not being able to sell their toxic products anymore. However, there are still thousands of Americans who will be diagnosed with mesothelioma each year who need a way to financially recovery for the wrong done to them.
Continue reading

According to a recent case before the California Court of Appeal, defendant purchased an asbestos mine in Coalinga, California in the early 1960s. From the time of purchase until 1985, defendant supplied asbestos to companies that used it for products to be sold to the construction industry.

Plaintiff was the owner of a construction company that built over 200 homes between the early 1960s and the mid-1980s. Plaintiff never personally worked as a builder or foreman on any of the home construction projects. He did, however, walk through the various construction sites on a regular basis. Each home was constructed with drywall that workers finished with premixed joint compound. After applying joint compound and allowing it to dry, workers then sanded it several times. Plaintiff was often present during the sanding process.
Continue reading

For most, being diagnosed with mesothelioma is devastating. Asbestos fibers are proven to cause a deadly form of cancer known as mesothelioma, lung cancer, and other serious respiratory illnesses.

Asbestos is comprised of six naturally occurring forms of silica, which has been mined for thousands of years. During the industrial revolution, which began around 1850, manufacturers started using asbestos in many aspects of production. Whether it was used in constructing a factory or in manufactured goods sold to millions of consumers, asbestos served as a cheap and efficient insulator from heat, electricity and chemicals.

Aside from these beneficial qualities, there is a significant risk involved in working with asbestos. When the fibers are inhaled, they become trapped in a layer of organ tissue known as the mesothelium. There is no way to remove the fibers, and most people do not develop any symptoms until the disease has nearly killed the patient. Once a mesothelioma diagnosis is made, there is usually very little time left for the patient.
Continue reading

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys understand that the companies responsible for producing and installing toxic asbestos often choose to spend their money fighting just claims from people diagnosed with mesothelioma. These corporate defendants will attempt to use the discovery process as a weapon to avoid taking responsibility for their negligence.

Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corp., an appeal argued before the California Court of Appeals, involved a plaintiff who worked at a tire factory from the late 1960s to the late 1970s. Slightly more than 30 years since he stopped working at the tire plant, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a deadly form of lung cancer most commonly associated with asbestos exposure.

The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit against his former employer four months after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, claiming that he was exposed to asbestos fibers during the course of his employment. The plaintiff died after filing the lawsuit, and his estate converted the cases into a survivorship and wrongful death action.
Continue reading

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers know that our city’s once great maritime industry may be responsible for countless cases of asbestos exposure.

According to a recent article in the Louisiana Record, a former shipyard worker has filed a negligence action against multiple companies that allegedly caused his mesothelioma.

The plaintiff is suing shipping companies, ship builders, insurance companies, freight rail companies, shipping terminals, and other shipping industry-related companies that he claims contributed to his asbestos exposure.

He spent more than a decade working on ships in the Port of New Orleans beginning in the 1950s. He states in his mesothelioma lawsuit that he was never told of the extreme health risks of working in an asbestos-filled environment. The cargo he was handling was often asbestos material and the ships were also filled with asbestos. He is suing for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and other damages related to his illness.
Continue reading

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania was recently tasked with determining whether the decision by the state supreme court in Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC effectively barred expert testimony relying upon the “any exposure” theory of asbestos-related diseases.

In weighing the facts of Rost, R. v. Ford Motor Company, the court ultimately deemed them to be significantly different from those in Betz, and therefore affirmed an earlier verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Boston mesothelioma attorneys recognize this was an important ruling in so far as it underscored that a ban on the “any exposure” theory doesn’t necessarily mean that the testimony of any expert who espouses it should be discounted.
Continue reading

In the case of Williams Sr. et al. v. Placid Oil Co., recently weighed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, an asbestos manufacturer’s bankruptcy effectively derailed the plaintiff’s claim for damages.

In a split decision, the appellate court held that because the plaintiff was an “unknown creditor” a the time the company sought bankruptcy protection through discharge, the plaintiff was not entitled to direct notice of right to claim. What makes this matter even more frustrating is that even if the plaintiff had been made aware of the right to sue, it’s unclear what kind of case she might have had, as she did not even know she was sick until decades later.

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers agree with the sole dissenting justice in this case, who reasoned that it is unconstitutional for the right to pursue a wrongful death claim to be discharged in a bankruptcy that occurred 15 years before the plaintiffs even knew she was sick. The dissenting justice lamented the fact that constitutional concerns were not raised by the plaintiff upon appeal; only issues regarding whether adequate notice was given prior to the bankruptcy discharge.
Continue reading

In civil matters, there are two primary types of compensation: Compensatory and punitive.

Both ultimately go to the plaintiff if he or she wins the case, but they serve very different purposes. Compensatory damages are those awarded to compensate the victim for the direct costs suffered – ie., medical bills, lost wages, etc. Punitive damages, meanwhile, are intended to punish the defendant for an egregious wrong.

In Boston mesothelioma lawsuits, the courts allow plaintiffs to seek punitive damages, but the threshold for awarding them is high. As one justice in the New York Supreme Court was recently quoted in an asbestos case, “Punitive damages should only be sought in the most serious cases to correct for the most egregious conduct.”
Continue reading

Rejecting all of the remaining defenses, a jury in Pennsylvania awarded $7.25 million to the survivors of a man who died after being diagnosed with mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure.

The victim, now deceased, was diagnosed with the aggressive cancer in January 2010, several decades after his exposure during the 1960s. He died six months later.

Boston mesothelioma lawsuit attorneys understand that these cases can be extremely difficult for patients and families. But this case reveals why it’s worth it to press forward. It’s about holding defendants accountable for using material they knew to be dangerous and for failing to warn workers and the public about those dangers. It’s also about ensuring that your family will be financially secure when you’re gone.
Continue reading