Mesothelioma Lawyers Blog

A 40-year study that downplays the health effects of asbestos exposure for miners and mill workers has drawn the ire of several mesothelioma advocacy groups.

Our Boston mesothelioma attorneys know that a hallmark of solid science is objectivity. This particular study, conducted by Dr. John Corbett McDonald of the McGill University’s School of Occupational Health, based in Canada, has been criticized for lacking transparency and for being biased toward the industry.

It is a fact that the Chrysolite Institute, which is a lobbying group established to promote the use of asbestos in overseas products, uses the 40-year McGill study to bolster its claims of asbestos safety.

But why would a reputable scientist risk that reputation in order to show the asbestos industry in a favorable light?

According to an investigation by CBC News, it all boils down to money.

Back in the 1960s, the dangers of asbestos were becoming more widely known and understood. The industry, however, didn’t want to risk government regulation. That would have meant huge profit losses and lawsuits (which later ended up happening anyway, but they were trying to avoid it at the time).

So it took its cues from the tobacco industry, with the overarching view that industry is always best suited to look after its own issues. (Of course, as we now see clearly, that’s not true when it comes to preserving public health; industry is out for industry.)

Just look at the tobacco industry. There were in fact many scientists on big tobacco’s payroll who attested to the fact that cigarettes were simply a healthy stress-reliever – an account we now see as so blatantly false as to be laughable, if the consequences of those lies weren’t so devastating.

But in this vein, it hired a scientist to begin research on the issue.

Who did they hire?

According to CBC, it was none other than Dr John Corbett McDonald of McGill.

The news station produced documents showing that McDonald and other researchers at the school accepted checks form the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association between 1966 to 1972, for amounts that today would translate into several million dollars.

The results of the McGill study seem to indicate it was exposure to another chemical, tremolite, that caused mesothelioma more frequently than did the asbestos.

McGill researchers reportedly refused to give the raw data to CBC reporters, but said it would be conducting an internal investigation regarding the integrity of the results. That investigation is ongoing.

Now, without seeing the raw results of this study ourselves, it’s hard to make a conclusion one way or the other about whether the study was flawed. However, there is a great appearance of impropriety, whether or not the research itself remained untainted.

What we do know is this: The World Health Organization has concluded that all types of asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis, and further that there is absolutely no safe level of exposure.

While the substance has been widely shunned by U.S. manufacturers since the 1970s, people continue to learn they have been sickened by mesothelioma, as the disease has an extremely long latency period. People who have been exposed to the airborne asbestos toxins don’t learn until decades later that they are ill.
Continue reading

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers realize that asbestos litigation is a commitment.

It’s rarely a swift process, despite the fact that the courts do realize that those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma are working with borrowed time.

But for those who struggle with lung cancer, asbestosis or mesothelioma, it’s not always about the money. It’s about justice and holding agencies accountable for negligence.

Such was the case with 10 Architect of the Capitol employees, federal government workers charged with the construction and preservation of our nation’s iconic monuments. These are structures such as the U.S. Capitol Building, the Senate Office Buildings, the House Office Buildings, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Capitol Visitor Center, the Library of Congress, the Capitol Grounds and the U.S. Botanic Garden.

These workers alleged that back in 2000, health and safety hazards were first discovered in the miles-long underground utility system that runs beneath Capitol Hill. These are the underground pipes and tunnels that are used to provide steam and chilled water to the federal facilities.

Some of those hazards included excessive heat, falling concrete – and asbestos.

Lab tests indeed determined that certain AOC workers were exposed to “extremely high” levels of asbestos.

There was even testimony on Capitol Hill that Congress hadn’t done enough to protect workers.

The workers who blew the whistle on those dangers suffered harassment and retaliation for speaking out. They later received an undisclosed settlement.

That agreement, between the federal Office of Compliance (OOC) and the AOC, stipulated that repairs to the tunnels would be completed within the next five years – with full abatement completed by June of 2012.

Congressional officials several times lamented that there wasn’t enough money to complete all of the work. Of course, if the alternative meant Congressional members would have to suffer no steam or chilled water to their facilities, certainly, they might have been persuaded to fix the problems sooner.

And in fact, the AOC did spend $173 million million to cover the repairs, and declared its obligation had been satisfied. Both agencies applauded one another for the completion of the work.

But the fact of the matter is, it took years for the agency to step up and take action, even after they knew the dangers to which they were exposing their workers.

A former supervisor at the AOC who now suffers lung diseases as a result of his exposure to asbestos, said it angers him to hear the agencies pat one another on the back.

The announcement, he says, is nothing but paperwork. His illness is something he lives with each day.

“After 15 years of ignoring health issues,” he told a Roll Call reporter, “You don’t settle with anybody.”
Continue reading

Boston mesothelioma lawyers know that this disease is devastating.

Families are shattered when lives are abruptly ended – in most cases the victims those who had no idea that years before they had been exposed to asbestos, the primary root cause of the deadly mesothelioma cancer.

Now in civil court, these relatives have been known to sue the companies responsible when they suffered second-hand exposure. That is, their loved one came home from work with the asbestos fibers covering their clothing. When their family members hugged them or washed their laundry, they too became exposed.

However, it is this devastating loss of a loved one that is at the center of Sherrell VAnhooser v. Hennessy Industries Inc.
, heard in the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles, California. Although it’s out-of-state, this case deals with issues that are relevant to family members of mesothelioma sufferers in Boston. At issue is something called loss of consortium. This is simply legalese for saying that you were deprived of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries caused by the defendant.

In this case, the primary issue was whether a mesothelioma victim’s wife could sue for loss of consortium, even though the pair had not married until after the husband had been exposed.

The company had argued that the two would have had to have been married at the time of his exposure in order for her to sue for these damages. As you are probably aware, mesothelioma lies latent in one’s system for years – usually decades. So a person who was exposed to asbestos back in the 1960s may only just now be learning of their illness. Once it is diagnosed, the mesothelioma has reached such a point that is deadly within about a year.

So of course the company would want to minimize the damages it would have to pay by limiting the group of individuals who could sue them for loss of consortium.

However, the three-judge panel in the California appellate court ruled that the soon-to-be-widow in this case could in fact move forward on her claim to damages for loss of consortium. This sets a precedent that is encouraging in future case law, not only in California but across the country. In fact, the appellate court expressly stated that this was a recurring issue in a number of asbestos cases awaiting trial.

In this case, the husband served during the 1960s and 1970s in the U.S. Navy and then until 1990 as an auto mechanic – in both occupations, suffering from asbestos exposure from products made by Hennessy. The last time he reportedly had an encounter with these products was sometime between 1988 and 1990.

He then married his wife in late December 1991. His symptoms of mesothelioma did not begin to show up until late 2010. He was officially diagnosed with the disease in June of last year.

He has since sued numerous companies – Hennessy included – for his illness. With regard to the issue of loss of consortium, however, the company argued that the date of discovery and diagnosis of illness are irrelevant. What is important, they contended, was the date of exposure.

Not so, the appellate court decided, saying specifically:

“For purposes of creation of a loss of consortium cause of action, injury to a spouse in the latent disease context occurs when the illness or its symptoms are discovered or diagnosed, not at the time of the tortious act causing the harm.”
Continue reading

Men who worked as diesel mechanics in New England prior to the 1980s may be doubly at risk for developing mesothelioma, according to research that indicates diesel fuel contains a carcinogen that can be nearly as dangerous as asbestos exposure.

New England mesothelioma lawyers understand that for diesel mechanics, the risk was then two-fold. Many would have been exposed to asbestos dust and fibers while on the job, breathing in the toxic compound. In many cases, those fibers also clung to their clothing, which they then wore home and unknowingly exposed their families. But now, it appears that diesel fumes, too, put them at risk.

Now for years, International Agency for Research on Cancer (also known as the IARC, a subsidiary of the World Health Organization), has maintained that diesel fuel was a likely carcinogen, meaning a compound that causes cancer. However, there had never been any definitive research indicating this was true.

However, new studies were recently published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Cancer Institute that both looked at more than 12,000 cave workers. These studies are known as the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study, or DEMS.

What those researchers discovered was there was a marked increase in lung cancer rates for workers who were exposed to underground diesel exhaust. In fact, those who had more exposure were more likely to die of lung cancer. In one study, researchers found the workers who suffered the highest exposure were three times as likely to die of cancer, while the other study found they were five times as likely.

Those within the mining industry say this research won’t hold any weight with regard to current practices, as the numbers examine worker exposure from the 1950s through the 1990s. During that time, workers often used dirtier and older equipment. Advances in technology, representatives said, mean mineworkers are no longer exposed to the same toxins, and since 2008, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has enforced rules on maximum exposure per worker.

And advances in working conditions have also improved for auto mechanics. However, that does nothing for those who were likely exposed to the cancer-causing compounds years ago. Given the long incubation period of mesothelioma – it is almost always decades before the cancer is diagnosed and is soon fatal upon discovery – we’re going to continue seeing mechanics who were exposed years ago just now becoming sickened.

While the National Resources Defense Council, as well as the Diesel Technology Forum both estimate that diesel emissions have been chopped by nearly 99 percent in newly-manufactured engines, there are still many, many older engines that are still in use – particularly in developing countries.

The studies didn’t indicate an exact level at which the diesel fumes are harmful, but scientists suggest that the risks shoot up even when there is moderate exposure.

Researchers also expressly stated that while their studies focused on mine workers, the risk is not limited to them. In fact the next group that is more likely at risk are the heavily-exposed occupational groups (such as diesel mechanics) followed by the general population.
Continue reading

Our Boston mesothelioma lawyers write a lot about people who were exposed to this deadly disease by way of their employer.

A lot of times these were individuals who worked in shipyards, military service, factories, construction or some other job where airborne asbestos was a common threat.

Something we haven’t discussed at great length, however, is non-work-related exposure, and in particular, the peritoneal mesothelioma that often results from this type of contact with the carcinogen.

Peritoneal mesothelioma accounts for roughly 10 percent of mesothelioma cases that are caused by workplace asbestos exposure. However, nearly 50 percent of all peritoneal mesothelioma cases are the result of exposure that happened outside the workplace.

Pleural mesothelioma is what we often refer to as the cancer that attacks the thin lining of membrane around the lungs. It’s the most common kind, and it accounts for 70 percent of mesothelioma cases total.

But peritoneal mesothelioma, which is the second most-common form of the disease, attacks the lining of the stomach.

The latter, as this study noted, is more common in people who were exposed to asbestos someplace other than their work. Most commonly, this meant they lived in a building or home where there was asbestos used in the construction. In other cases, it means living with a family member whose work exposed them to asbestos. When that worker returned home, the asbestos covered their clothing, and was therefore ingested by their family members. So it’s second-hand exposure.

The effects, however, are just as deadly.

The Wake Forest study, conducted by Dr. Jill Ohar, alongside Dr. Edward Levine and a graduate student, analyzed the records and surveys obtained from nearly 400 mesothelioma patients, many of whom were going through civil litigation with regard to their illnesses as well.

The findings of this study are expected to be presented in Boston this September at the International Mesothelioma Interest Group Conference.

Researchers also found that with peritoneal mesothelioma, just as with pleural mesothelioma, the latency period is roughly 42 years. That’s the amount of time it took from the first exposure to diagnosis. Compare that to occupational exposure, where the latency period stands at about 49 years.

However, those with peritoneal mesothelioma do tend to live a bit longer – an average of 57 months after diagnosis, versus roughly 20 months after diagnosis for those with pleural mesothelioma.

Some of that difference, though, was attributed to the fact that those with peritoneal mesothelioma tend to be diagnosed earlier than those with pleural mesothelioma. In the former, the average age at diagnosis was about 51 years-old. With the latter, the patient was about 67 before they were diagnosed.

It’s estimated that nearly 30 million people in the U.S. were exposed to asbestos at work between the years of 1940 and 1979.

As part of ongoing research, the team at Wake Forest is continuing to collect DNA samples from mesothelioma patients. They’re aiming to collect this from 1,000 patients by the end of next year. They’ve just recently passed the 400-mark.
Continue reading