Articles Tagged with mesothelioma attorney

A recent article from Business Insurance involves a mesothelioma lawsuit in which the jury awarded the family of deceased worker (consisting of the children and surviving spouse) $17 million.

shotThe plaintiff filed the lawsuit in 2012, and claimed that he was exposed to the deadly asbestos fibers while working at a shipyard in Norfolk, Virginia in the late 1950s to the mid to late 1960s.  He had been working as a machinist at the shipyard for years.  A year after filing his lawsuit, he died from malignant mesothelioma. At this point, his family opened an estate in the name of the decedent’s estate and converted the action to a wrongful death case. Continue reading

Mesothelioma is a deadly and painful disease. Not only that, but the vast majority of patients are told they only have a very short period of time left to live after being diagnosed with the disease.  There is no cure for malignant pleural mesothelioma, and the only treatments that are available are generally very invasive, painful, and in the best case scenarios only increase a patient’s prognosis for a matter of months before he or she finally succumbs to the asbestos-related illness.

vermiculiteHowever, despite the many problems with finding a cure or more effective treatment, researchers are working every day on finding a better way to help patients who are dying from malignant pleural mesothelioma and the other types of malignant mesothelioma. There are three types of malignant mesothelioma, and the type depends on where the cancer occurs.  Typically, it is not truly different types of mesothelioma, but rather three separate locations for it. Continue reading

In January, an appeals court in California upheld the award of $1.6 million in compensatory damages and nearly $4 million in punitive damages in an asbestos injury lawsuit. courthouse

That decision came following an appeal by defendants in Casey v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. following two jury trials – the first that determined liability and compensatory damages and a second limited re-trial that solely weighed the issue of punitive damages after the first could not reach a consensus.

Defendant had argued on appeal to the three-judge panel of the First Appellate District, Division Four that it was improper for the judge to hold a retrial just on the issue of punitive damages. Meanwhile, plaintiff had cross-appealed the fact that the trial court had reduced the punitive damage award from $20 million to just under $4 million.  Continue reading

Contact Information