Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog

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