Mesothelioma Lawyer Blog

Asbestos Exposure in New York School Riles Parents

Thu, 03 May 2012 10:49:14 -0500

With their children at risk for asbestos exposure, parents at a Brooklyn public school are in an uproar.

Our mesothelioma attorneys share their anger at the district's actions, which involve the city's plan to begin asbestos abatement during the school year - a multimillion dollar project.

It's our understanding that the windows of the school contain asbestos, a product that for years was commonly used in some 3,000 products, including insulation, textiles and building materials. It is now well-known to greatly increase health risks, leading to lung diseases and mesothelioma, a rare and deadly cancer. Asbestos exposure is particularly dangerous when its airborne particles are breathed into the lungs.

Production of asbestos continued well into the 1970s, when the Occupational Safety & Health Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency began to regulate it. Asbestos was banned in New York in 1972, but a number of the city's older schools - like Cobble Hill in Brooklyn - still contain it.

Getting rid of it involves strict regulations, meaning it has to be done by a licensed company and the work has to be approved and overseen by the EPA.

Still, what has parents upset is that the asbestos abatement will be done during the school year. Additionally, parents weren't initially informed of the work and the potential risks to the health of their children.

The school district has promised that all asbestos abatement will occur after school hours, in the evenings and on weekends. The parents, however, are demanding that the work wait until summertime, noting a long history of construction companies and inspectors not following proper protocol when it comes to asbestos removal.

Parents have staged protests and sit-ins - all to no avail, as of yet.

The renovation work is expected to take some 18 months, and involves not only new windows, but a new roof and an updated facade.

Parents have noted that since the project started in March, the windows and playground equipment have been covered in dust on multiple occasions. This has raised legitimate concerns over the risk of airborne asbestos exposure for their young children.

School officials are insisting the work is safe, but aren't offering up any proof of this, other than the fact that the work will be done when no students are in the building. Yet, as we all know, dust particles can remain in the air hours or even days and weeks after work has finished.

The parents argue that school officials had time during winter and spring breaks to start on the work - and yet, they did nothing. Now, with summer break just around the corner, school officials refuse to wait until classes have wrapped up for the year.

Young children as well have joined the protest, carrying paper signs that say, "Do It In The Summer," a message to school officials.

The school teaches some 680 students in pre-K through fifth grade.

Trial Procedure in Mesothelioma Cases Discussed by the Court in McDonald v. A.C.&S., Inc. et al.

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:31:36 -0500

Mesothelioma is a very serious disease, and it is important to be able to afford the medical care you need. Our experienced mesothelioma attorneys understand what it takes to get you the award you deserve, which can provide the peace of mind of knowing that your family will have the financial resources necessary to carry on.

McDonald v. A.C.&S., Inc., et al. is a recent New York asbestos exposure case. James McDonald worked as a sheet metal worker for his family's indoor environment comfort company during the 1970s. This type of work includes working with heating, ventilation and air conditioner (HVAC). While working at this family business, there were other workers close to McDonald, who were working with Crane Co. valves. These workers would repair, remove and replace the Crane Co. valves in close proximity to McDonald. After many decades, McDonald was diagnosed with mesothelioma because of asbestos exposure, and he died in 2000.

McDonald's estate (plaintiff), represented by his wife, brought an asbestos personal injury and wrongful death action against Crain Co. (Crane or defendant) and several other parties. Plaintiff asserts that Crane Co. supplied, manufactured and distributed products containing asbestos which were handled by workers surrounding McDonald when he worked at his family business. This bystander asbestos exposure could have caused the mesothelioma in McDonald, argued the plaintiff.

In order to prove that McDonald got mesothelioma from his exposure to the Crain valves, plaintiff provided the testimony of McDonald's former co-worker (Thayer) at the family HVAC business. Thayer testified that McDonald was exposed to the Crane gaskets and insulation which contained asbestos. Thayer was unable to identify specific dates where he saw McDonald near the Crane valves or the work sites where the valves were located.

The Crane valves that were insulated did not contain asbestos but the valves that were not insulated had gaskets containing asbestos. Crane defended itself by arguing that Thayer had not identified which valves were used by the family HVAC business. Crane argued further that the plaintiff's witness was not able to prove critical components to show that McDonald's mesothelioma was caused by the Crane valves. Thus, Crane asked the court to enter summary judgment in its favor.

The court in this case looks to the law surrounding asbestos cases and the summary judgment process. In order to grant summary judgment, there must be no genuine dispute as to material fact in the case that must be presented to a jury, and the party moving for summary judgment must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In this case, in order for the defendant to be granted summary judgment by the court the defendant had to present evidence that could illustrate the fact that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact.

Once the defendant provided its evidence to support a motion for summary judgment, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to show that the victim was exposed to asbestos fiber from the defendant's product. The court cites previous case law that says that the plaintiff must show facts and conditions that allow for a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable.

The critical point in this case is where Thayer testified that he and McDonald worked in a psychiatric facility boiler room that contained Crane valves. Thayer was able to sufficiently identify these Crane valves despite the defendant's argument that his testimony was mere speculation.

Because of this remaining dispute as to a material fact, it becomes the jury's responsibility to determine the weight and admissibility of the expert testimony. For this reason, the judge could not grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the case will proceed to trial.

Pfizer Can Be Sued for Asbestos Exposure, Court Rules

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:48:17 -0500

A lauded victory has been handed down by a federal appellate court in New York: drug maker giant Pfizer can be sued for the asbestos exposure risk posed by a subsidiary, now bankrupt.

Our mesothelioma victim's attorneys cheer this latest development in what has been a 30-year saga in the battle for justice.

At the core of this fight are insulation products that were manufactured by Quigley Co. Inc. This insulation contained asbestos. Pfizer purchased Quigley in the late 1960s. And while Pfizer never directly made the asbestos-laden product, it did slap its name on the product and derive a profit from its sale.

As it's been well-documented, exposure to asbestos has been linked to a myriad of serious health ailments, including lung cancer and mesothelioma, a cancer that attacks the thin lining of the organs. In both cases, the results are almost always deadly, though often not discovered until many years after the initial exposure. At particular risk are workers who handled the product day in and day out. But those who may have had this insulation installed in their homes or offices could also be at significant risk.

The case is called In re Quigley Company Inc, U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Second Circuit.

At one point, Quigley faced lawsuits filed by more than 160,000 people - some of them dating back to the 1970s. It filed for bankruptcy in 2004.

Pfizer hammered out a deal with attorneys who represented about 80 percent of those plaintiffs, resulting in a $430 million payout. The bankruptcy was part of that settlement.

Then, a bankruptcy court issued an injunction staying the rest of the lawsuits. Quigley and Pfizer had argued that the bankruptcy protected Quigley from any future lawsuits.

But then, the attorney for the plaintiffs argued a theory of liability known as "apparent manufacturer." What this basically means is that although Pfizer didn't actually make the product, its logo and name were still on the packaging - which means it can be held liable for that product. A federal judge agreed and overturned the injunction.

The district court cited the Restatement of Torts § 400, which states that anyone who puts their name and logo on a certain product is subject to the same liability as the company that actually made the product.

Now, the appeals court has upheld that decision.

What this means is that future victims will have the opportunity to seek justice.

Pfizer, in a written statement, underscored that this was a procedural issue, not one that indicated the claimants were right or wrong - and unsurprisingly, Pfizer denies any liability. But the truth is that holding these companies accountable for the permanent damage they inflicted on countless families is important, not only to ensuring that those harmed individuals and their families are cared for, but that the company will use greater care in the future.

Asbestos Exposure Threatens Employees' Health, Results in Fine

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:16:48 -0500

A Chicago company has been slapped with a $127,000 fine for improper asbestos removal, which has been known to lead to mesothelioma, a fatal cancer.

Our asbestos exposure attorneys are encouraged to see that the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration is proactively going after companies that are irresponsible and trying to save money by putting workers and the public at risk. However, we're concerned that this is even still necessary.

By now, companies should be well aware of the severe harm that comes with asbestos exposure and of their responsibility to handle it according to 15 U.S.C. 2601. Asbestos is a mineral that had been often used in construction and building materials, cars and even clothing - chiefly for its fire-resistant properties. Because it used to be used in practically everything, construction companies need to proceed as if it is present to protect workers until they prove otherwise.

The health effects include:

Asbestosis, which is a long-term disease that causes lung scarring and irritation;
Lung cancer, which is a deadly cancer characterized by coughing, shortness of breath and chest pains;
Mesothelioma, which is a deadly cancer attacking the lungs, heart and abdomen and doesn't show signs for years or even decades - often, leaving patients with less than a year to live by the time there is a diagnosis.

Because of the inherent dangers, the Department of Environmental Protection has set up very specific guidelines with regard to how asbestos must be handled and removed.

In this case, the Chicago metal and plastic distribution company, A.M. Castle & Co., was found to be in violation of 22 major health regulations, which resulted in exposing workers to a hazardous environment.

According to OSHA's press release, the workers suffered asbestos exposure while they were removing insulation at a work site in Franklin Park. None of the workers were equipped with the proper safety gear. OSHA's standards require that employers must limit their workers' exposure to asbestos to 0.2 fibers per cubic centimeter of air throughout the course of an eight-hour shift. Additionally, they have to provide approved and effective respiratory gear and protective clothing. They also have to keep careful records and monitor the exposure levels.

It doesn't appear that was done in this case, leaving workers vulnerable to serious lung diseases.

OSHA has recommended a fine of nearly $130,000.

The specific violations include:

Failing to pinpoint the presence, location and amount of material that contained asbestos;
Failing to properly label and affix warnings on asbestos-containing pipes;
Failing to designate an area for safe asbestos removal;
Failing to monitor their employees for asbestos exposure levels;
Failing to use a vacuum or air filter to collect debris and dust during the removal process;
Failing to train its employees on asbestos removal;
Failing to provide respirators to employees;
Failing to provide protective clothing for workers or a decontamination area.

These are all considered serious violations, and they involve the assertion that employer either knew or should have known that what they were doing - or not doing - put their workers at serious risk.

Most of today and tomorrow's mesothelioma victims were also exposed in the workplace. Not because they were removing asbestos, but because they were unwittingly exposed over a prolonged period of time by employers who knew better. Many worked in manufacturing processes where asbestos was used. Others worked as mechanics, builders, or trade laborers who were exposed through the many products that contained asbestos.

What Laws Govern At-Fault Parties in Mesothelioma Cases Discussed in Feinberg v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 10:42:21 -0500

The diagnosis of mesothelioma can be life altering. It is hard to identify who may be at fault for your exposure or how to proceed.

If you have been exposed to asbestos it is important to have a team of mesothelioma attorneys who concentrate on these cases.

Feinberg v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. is a case that arose from the Colgate-Palmolive's ("defendant") motion for dismissal of plaintiff's personal injury action. Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos through the use of Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder made by the defendant. There was no label or warning on the product to indicate that there was asbestos in the powder. Because of her use of this product continuously for thirty years, plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Plaintiff argued that defendant failed to warn her that asbestos was in the talc and the effects of this asbestos exposure.

The conflict in this case arose in the confusion surrounding the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act ("FDCA"). This Act was created in the early 1900's to address the prohibited actions surrounding misbranding of food, drugs and cosmetics. In 1997 there was a preemption provision ("Preemption Clause") added to the act to address the labeling and packaging of cosmetics. See 21 U.S.C.A §379s(a).

This Preemption Clause specifically states that no state can establish any requirements for labeling or packaging of cosmetics that is different than those requirements expressed in the FDCA.

In Feinberg, the genesis of plaintiff's injuries was forty-five years before the Preemption Clause was adopted. This genesis is considered to be the time the plaintiff was first exposed to asbestos. However, it is also important to note that it was not until after the adoption of the Preemption Clause that the plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

In this case, Colgate argued that the Preemption Clause should apply to them because the plaintiff was diagnosed after the adoption of this clause. And if this clause is not considered applicable then Colgate argues that because the Preemption Clause was only adopted in 1997, the New York state law should apply to injuries that arose before the clause was adopted. New York state law provided a three year statute of limitations for claims that arose because of exposure to toxic substances including asbestos.

Preemption is a legal doctrine that gives precedence to federal law over state law. Consistent with this principle, states are also not allowed to adopt any law that is inconsistent with a federal law addressing the same issue.

Because of this dispute over the Preemption Clause, the court discusses its analysis of this clause. There are many factors that are taken into account when analyzing the different applications of new statutes or amendments. The court in Feinberg explains the process the court must observe in determining the interpretation of the Preemption Clause to the FDCA. It is important to observe the legislative intent, state law which conflicts with the federal law, as well as canons of statutory construction.

The court first discusses the issue of retroactivity. Usually in the legislation process, new laws or amendments are not considered applicable to things that occurred before the adoption of the law. The only exception to this concept is where it is specified to apply retroactively within the law or amendment.

The second area the court observes is that of express preemption. This arises where the legislature specifies in new legislation that the federal law is intended to preempt the state law. Statutory construction is very complicated. As individuals, we often overlook the intricacies involved in our statutes and the complications that they create.

Another thing touched on in this case is the area of administrative law. Congress is responsible for lawmaking, and in doing this they are also allowed to create administrative agencies that focus on different areas of law to help in this lawmaking. In this case, the legislature has created the Food and Drug Administration to manage legal issues surrounding these things.

It is the obligation of each agency to have a notice and comment rulemaking procedure. This rulemaking procedure is the only way the statute can be adopted and applied. This consists of first providing the appropriate notice to the public of a proposed legislation. Secondly, the agency must provide the public with sufficient time designated by statute to become appraised of the contents of the legislation. And then there is a time for comments to be made by anyone who has opinions or comments that are relevant to the proposed legislation.

Because there were still questions that a reasonable person could have regarding Colgate-Palmolive's obligation under statute, their motion to dismiss was denied.

Simpkins v. CSX Corp. Discusses Who Can Sue for Asbestos Related Illness

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:09:37 -0500

When you give your spouse a hug, do you ever wonder what kinds of particles are on their clothing?

Most people do not think about these things. If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma, you may be wondering how you got the illness. And more importantly how you are going to get the care you need.

Our experienced mesothelioma attorneys understand your concerns and we are here to help. We can help you identify the responsible parties and formulate the detailed arguments needed when confronted with a mesothelioma diagnosis.

In Simpkins v. CSX, the Illinois Supreme Court tackles the issues involved in a case arising from exposure to asbestos. This case arose because Simpkins ("Plaintiff") was diagnosed with mesothelioma. CSX Corp. ("Defendant") employed her husband, Mr. Simpkins, who worked with products containing asbestos. Mr. Simpkins would arrive at home each night with asbestos particles on his clothing. Plaintiff had never been an employee of the defendant and had never been on the defendant's premises. However, plaintiff claimed that because of her exposure to asbestos particles on her husband's clothing, she became ill with mesothelioma.

This court's decision centers on Plaintiff's cause of action for negligence. Before discussing the case further, it is important to identify the legal components involved in a negligence claim.

Plaintiff had the burden of proof.

Plaintiff must prove all of the elements by a preponderance of the evidence. (This standard is more likely than not, often thought of as fifty-one percent.)

Negligence consists of four elements: defendant owes a specific duty of care to the plaintiff; defendant breached that duty of care; the defendant's breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries the plaintiff suffered; and the plaintiff suffered damages

When addressing the issues surrounding this negligence claim, the court is charged with analyzing whether there was a duty of care owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, and whether the plaintiff was a foreseeable victim of the defendant's alleged negligence.

Plaintiff argued that the defendant had a duty to protect her and her family from the foreseeable risks associated with the take-home asbestos on her husband's clothing. CSX argued that they do not owe a duty to a non-employee third party who was exposed to asbestos the way Plaintiff was because there was no way to foresee any harm to her. Therefore, they should not be held liable for Plaintiff's injuries.

In this court decision the legal concept of duty is discussed at length. The court cites prior case law and even public policy in this analysis. The court here explains that in this analysis the first question to discuss is whether the defendant's actions or omissions contributed to the risk of harm to the plaintiff. In this case, the court found that the Plaintiff did provide enough evidence in her complaint for a reasonable person to conclude that the defendant was engaged in activities with products that contained asbestos and that could have created harm to Plaintiff.

The next question in the duty analysis is to observe the type of relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The general rule is that there is no duty owed to unforeseeable victims. There is also no affirmative duty where the defendant did not create the risk. However, there are exceptions to these rules where there is a special relationship which can vary depending on the state.

There are four central components involved in an analysis of the relationship between the parties. The court looks to:

The reasonable foreseeability of the plaintiff's injury.

The likelihood of the injury to the plaintiff.

The extent of action needed in order to protect the plaintiff from injury.

The consequences of imposing this burden of prevention on the defendant

The court next found that there was insufficient evidence as to whether the defendants could have reasonably foreseen that their actions would cause injury to the plaintiff. Basically, Plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence in her complaint to prove that defendant knew or should have known that there was an unreasonably high risk of harm to the plaintiff and others "similarly situated."

The court remanded the case to the trial court with the instruction that Plaintiff be allowed to amend her complaint.

The details involved in a claim under the theory of negligence are complex. Having an experienced attorney is essential in these mesothelioma cases.

Daley v. A.W. Chesterton Addresses the Two Disease Rule in Mesothelioma Cases

Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:22:34 -0500

After a lifetime of hard work and dedication, a diagnosis of mesothelioma can seem daunting. Fighting for your health should be your main concern. Our mesothelioma plaintiff's attorneys understand that you need an experienced attorney to help you get the award you deserve in your mesothelioma injury case.

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer associated with the inhaling of asbestos. This cancer is most common in the lungs and can create many uncomfortable symptoms and chest pain. Asbestos is a durable material used in manufacturing and building in the late 1800's- early 1900's. This substance is very dangerous, however at the time of its heightened use there was little knowledge about the medical affects of it.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania heard the case Daley v. A.W. Chesterton and considered whether an individual is allowed to bring a separate lawsuit for more than one malignant disease where there is reason to believe that the diseases are a result of the same asbestos exposure.

This case hinges on a legal rule called the two disease rule, which allows an individual to bring separate lawsuits where the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos which resulted in the plaintiff being diagnosed with separate malignant diseases.

In 1989 Plaintiff was diagnosed with both pulmonary asbestosis and squamous-cell carcinoma. These are two malignant diseases plaintiff contracted in his right lung. He sued several parties and obtained a settlement for the diseases he contracted while working with asbestos. That action was settled in 1994.

In 2005, Plaintiff was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma, for which he argues he contracted because of the same asbestos that he was exposed to, which had led to his earlier settlement. Plaintiff sued fourteen parties with his argument hinging on this two disease rule in Pennsylvania.

The defendants argued that when the plaintiff was diagnosed with his first malignant disease and filed that original lawsuit, the state of Pennsylvania has not yet adopted this two-disease rule. Because of this statutory time bar, the companies argued that the rules of the Pennsylvania single cause of action requirements should be upheld.

The court in this case clarifies some of the rules surrounding asbestos today. In Pennsylvania, the courts have created a limited exception to the original cause of action requirements in an individual claim with the adaptation of the two-disease rule. The central focus of this exception was to provide for the asbestos related diseases.

Defendants argued that by applying this two disease rule, the courts would be over-burdened with claims. The court disagreed and cited how rare these mesothelioma cases are and furthermore, that the studies have shown that the distinct asbestos related malignancies are usually respiratory.

The court ruled that because the plaintiff filed the original claim for a different malignant asbestos related disease and he did not know at the time of this first claim that he was ill with the second asbestos related disease, he was still able to bring the subsequent action.

Although the court considered both arguments in this case, it was held that the separated disease rule which was adopted in Pennsylvania, allows the plaintiff in this case to file a second action for the new malignant asbestos-related disease.

O'Neil v. Crane: The Rules Surrounding a Business's Duty to Employees in Mesothelioma Cases

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:57:19 -0500

The law is very intricate and complex, especially in asbestos exposure cases. There is only a slight distinction between when you are owed a warning from your employer and when you are not owed a warning. Do not make the mistake of thinking you do not have a case without speaking to our mesothelioma plaintiff's attorneys first.

O'Neil v. Crane is a wrongful death case that arose where an employee was exposed to asbestos while in the workplace. O'Neil ("plaintiff") worked at a manufacturing company called Crane Co. ("defendant"). While working in the manufacturing of pumps and valves, plaintiff came into contact with component parts that contained asbestos. The plaintiff became ill due to this exposure and consequently she passed away.

The integral part in this case hinges on the fact that the component parts were produced by a third party manufacturer outside of Crane. The plaintiff's estate argued on the deceased plaintiff's behalf claiming that her employer should be held strictly liable and liable under negligence because of their failure to warn workers of asbestos in the component material.

Considering there are two very different claims for liability here, the court was forced to address each claim separately.

As to the claim for strict liability, the court found that in applying the statutes governing strict liability they were unable to find the defendants liable. A party can only be held strictly liable if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was responsible for the civil wrong that caused harm to the plaintiff. The court points to the fact that there is significant case law in the manufacturing sector holding employers strictly liable however, those cases involve an employer who has asbestos elements produced within their company. In this instance, the asbestos was in component parts which the employer did not produce -- therefore the court found the wrong that caused injury to the plaintiff could not be connected directly to the employer.

The next area the court discusses is the concept of negligence. The question here was whether there is a duty to warn imposed on a manufacturer to protect their employees from foreseeable harms in the workplace that could arise from exposure to component parts made outside the company. Basically, the plaintiff in this case is asking for her employer to be held liable for not foreseeing the possible injuries caused by products manufactured by another company.

The proof required in this negligence claim is four fold. The plaintiff must show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a standard duty of care, the defendant breached that duty, the breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries that the plaintiff sustained, and there were damages.

The court held that where an employee was harmed by the elements of a component part created by a third party, the employer was not liable. Crane would not have been able to foresee that their employees were in any danger because they were not the producers of the asbestos containing parts.

Furthermore, Crane could not have warned their employees of this possible harm where they did not have the knowledge. The court cites that this proposed standard would impose too high a burden on manufacturers in areas they would be unable to control. The court stated that it would not be just to hold one manufacturer responsible for the negligence of a different manufacturer.

Having an attorney who can initially identify the at-fault parties is a crucial component in receiving the award you deserve. As this case illustrates, third-party vendors and other at-fault parties must be identified and pursued.

Kurns, et al. v. Railroad Friction Products Corp., et al. Highlights Complexities of Mesothelioma Compensation

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:06:10 -0500

The U.S. Supreme Court in Kurns, et al. v. Railroad Friction Products Corp., et al., has decided in favor of a railroad company that reportedly failed to warn its workers of the dangers of working with asbestos.

Our mesothelioma attorneys understand the case focused on a retired railroad welder and machinist, who died after filing suit against his former employer. The worker, George Corson, died of mesothelioma cancer, caused by exposure to asbestos decades earlier. He had alleged in his suit that not only were the products he worked with dangerous, but his employer failed to warn him of those dangers.

Corson's widow, Gloria Kurns, had taken over the case when her husband died.

According to the claim, Corson worked at the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad company for more than a quarter century, between 1947 and 1974. He worked in maintenance and locomotive repair. Mostly, he installed brakeshoes on the trains and stripped the insulation from the boilers.

Nearly 30 years after he stopped working with the company, he was diagnosed with cancerous mesothelioma. This is a rare cancer that essentially attacks the thin layer of cells that lines the internal organs. There are three types - one that attacks the lungs, one that attacks the heart and one that attacks the abdomen.

Medical experts have determined that exposure to asbestos, often by ingesting air particles, is known to cause cancer, and mesothelioma in particular. As in Corson's case, the damage is typically not apparent until many years down the road. By then, it's too late, and patients often have less than a year to live.

Corson was diagnosed in 2005, and filed suit in Pennsylvania in 2007. The suit went after 59 defendants, including Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC). This is the company that distributed the brakeshoes that contained the asbestos. Another company, Viad Corp., sold trains and train engine valves that also contained asbestos. Corson said not only were these products dangerous, but he was never given any warning of that danger.

The defendants in the case argued that they shouldn't be held liable because the claims against violating state law were pre-empted by the Locomotive Inspection Act, which essentially prohibits railroad carriers from using any parts that aren't safe or government-tested. Prior to that, in early 1900s, Congress had passed the Ash Pan Act and the Boiler Inspection Act, which outlined certain railroad safety conditions.

The railroad company, after having the case successfully moved from state to federal court, was backed in decisions by both the appellate and Supreme court. In a dissenting opinion, one justice said the company may not have been responsible for completely banning the brakeshoes, but it could have at the very least given railroad workers certain tools, such as masks, to safely handle the materials.

Thankfully, the law has changed dramatically in the last 50 years with regard to how we use and handle asbestos. Although a commonly-used product at the turn of the century, it is now rarely if ever used. There are also very specific laws in how it must be disposed of.

If you have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or think you may have been exposed to asbestos, contact an experienced mesothelioma attorney. As this ruling illustrates, these are complex cases and holding companies responsible decades later requires a firm with the knowledge, experience and resources that comes with focusing on justice for mesothelioma victims.

Longtime Navy Supplier Sets Up $75 Million Trust For Veterans With Mesothelioma

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:48:29 -0500

During the bankruptcy proceeding of a company that provided valves, gaskets and other products coated in asbestos for the U.S. Navy, a $75 million trust was established to help those who were exposed to asbestos and have mesothelioma.

Our mesothelioma lawyers for years have been helping our U.S. veterans, who have suffered the effects of exposure to asbestos, which was once a popular material used in all kinds of residential and commercial construction, as well as naval uses and car parts. Companies that used this natural mineral found that it was dangerous to employees, but too often ignored those risks.

Researchers and doctors eventually discovered that exposure to asbestos was harmful to employees and others who may have been nearby. Asbestos is a flaky mineral that can easily become airborne and ingested.

A frustrating aspect of asbestos exposure that results in mesothelioma is that it can linger for years or decades inside a person without any outward symptoms. As the asbestos forms tumors and mesothelioma, the person may discover some of the symptoms -- heavy coughing, fluid build-up and chest pain. By then, the cancer is typically in its later stages.

So, even though the cancer can take decades to form, once a person is diagnosed with mesothelioma, they live only an average of 12 months. For such a long-working form of cancer, it can kill quickly, once discovered. Researchers have been trying to develop treatment options that may result in a cure or at least a prolonging of life, but thus far haven't found one.

As our Mesothelioma Lawyer Blog has reported recently, scientists are looking at many options to determine if there is a potential cure for this deadly cancer.

This is the situation that many of our veterans are in today. They served our country faithfully for years or decades, only to face a life-threatening health crisis later in life. Now, in retirement, they are suffering from illnesses that resulted from that service time.

Because of laws that are designed to protect the government from lawsuits, suing the Navy can be pointless due caps on damages. But companies that contracted with the Navy have been exposed to litigation.

In this case, it involves Leslie Controls, which provided gaskets, valves and other products containing asbestos between the 1940s and 1980s for the Navy. The company has been slammed with lawsuits, causing it to file for bankruptcy protection. As part of a recent reorganization plan, the company dedicated $75 million, placed into a trust, for victims who were exposed to asbestos.

Asbestos has been linked not only to mesothelioma, but other respiratory illnesses as well. The company is protected from lawsuits while the bankruptcy proceeding is taking place, but experts believe the lawsuits will continue once the bankruptcy is completed.

This company understands that its products have harmed many people and killed others. Exposure to asbestos is dangerous and companies that regularly used it have been facing lawsuits from sick people and families of those who have died as a result. If you or a family member was exposed to asbestos during service in the armed forces, it is time to seek legal representation.

Mesothelioma Foundation Awards $500,000 to Research Cure For Mesothelioma

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:43:43 -0500

The Meso Foundation -- Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation -- recently announced it had added an additional $500,000 to put toward researching mesothelioma, bringing the total investment to about $7.6 million.

Our mesothelioma lawyers have reported recently about several efforts that are being made to increase the amount of funding and research done to try to not only find a cure for mesothelioma, but learn how to better detect it and stop it from developing.

Exposure to asbestos is the leading cause of mesothelioma. And while it is no longer actively used in insulation and other products, as it was throughout the 20th Century, it is still contained in many buildings throughout the country.

There is a constant wave of veterans and older adults who were exposed to asbestos when it was being used throughout the middle of the century. Vermiculite tainted with asbestos was being churned out of mines and shipped to manufacturing plants nationwide, causing many people to be exposed without knowledge of the effects.

As the years went on and people became ill with mesothelioma -- a form of cancer that is incurable -- researchers began looking at what was happening. They found that asbestos was the cause. Many businesses were warned, but did nothing. So, their employees were left to work in this environment without knowing the effects.

While asbestos has now been effectively banned from use in the United States and many other countries, there are still many older buildings, even some that have been renovated in recent years, that still contain asbestos.

This opens up different types of health hazards. For one, if a person lives or works in a building containing asbestos, it's possible that the mineral can flake off and get into the ventilation system and lead to exposure that way. If workers are called in to renovate a building or clear out known asbestos, done improperly, it could lead to workers and the public being exposed.

That's why there are specially trained workers who can remove asbestos from buildings to ensure it is done correctly. Even a small amount of asbestos exposure can lead to a diagnosis of mesothelioma one day.

But the Meso Foundation wants to know more about this incurable form of cancer. After 46 applicants attempted to prove that they should get the money to find a cure or at least more treatment options, five were chosen.

All projects were reviewed and ranked by members of the foundation's board. Projects will look at the molecular characteristics of mesothelioma tumors to see how defective genes impact malignant cells. Another project will look at how the body's proteins respond to chemotherapy cell death.

It is everyone's hope that this research continues and researchers and scientists may one day be able to know more about the cancer so that it may be detected and cured in its earlier stages. This will prevent patients from having to hear the bad news of a diagnosis decades after exposure.

U.S. Troops and Veterans At Risk For Mesothelioma

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:41:33 -0500

As U.S. troops are getting settled in statewide after a long and deadly eight-year war in Iraq, it's a good time to talk about the risks that troops and veterans have of being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

This deadly and incurable form of cancer is more common in veterans, but it remains to be seen whether this current generation of soldiers will be exposed to asbestos and other materials that cause this form of cancer.

Our mesothelioma lawyers have seen many examples of older veterans who served our country faithfully for decades, only to have a frustrating end of their lives because of exposure to asbestos. In decades past, asbestos was commonly used in Navy shipyards.

Because it was a natural mineral and was flame-retardant, it was useful in making sure fires didn't break out aboard the ships. It was used domestically in insulating homes, coating pipes and in common products, such as car parts, ceiling tiles and ceramics.

But years later, as researchers found people were getting sick, exposure to asbestos was determined to be the root cause. In many cases, corporate bosses found out about the risks, but did little to address them. Many people were left to suffer.

When a person is exposed to asbestos, even a small amount or for a short period of time, the fibers can create tumors years later. They don't necessarily create noticeable symptoms, but can linger for years or decades before people are diagnosed. In some documented cases, people have been exposed to asbestos 50 years earlier before they are diagnosed with mesothelioma. By the time they are diagnosed, they usually only live another 12 months.

In other countries where military members may be deployed, the same restrictions on asbestos may not be in place. In the United States, asbestos is not officially banned, but it is no longer used. Presumably, the same rules apply to U.S.-owned military bases worldwide, as well. But cities and towns in other parts of the world likely have less stringent guidelines.

Mesothelioma is a constant issue because new forms of dangerous material that can cause it are being discovered every day. While older generations may be more likely to get this form of cancer from deacade-old exposure to asbestos, younger generations may not be any safer. Our veterans, who have put their lives on the line for our freedom, should be especially taken care of when they return home from duty. As troops continue come back from combat, our mesothelioma lawyers hope they don't come back to discover they are ill.

New York Developer Indicted On Charges After Asbestos Exposure

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:17:52 -0500

As our mesothelioma lawyers have reported time and again, mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that takes decades to develop and is typically deadly within a matter of months once diagnosed.

Research has shown that mesothelioma has a direct link to asbestos, a natural mineral that for the better part of the 21st Century was used as insulation, in brake manufacturing, on naval ships, and in construction and building materials.

While asbestos is no longer actively used, it is still present in many buildings and old products. Laws have been created to regulate the use of asbestos and force both construction workers and developers to properly remove and transport this dangerous material.

When people break the laws and put the environment and human lives in danger, they can be prosecuted. That happened recently in Upstate New York. According to NBC News, a developer violated the Clean Air Act after workers allegedly handled large amounts of asbestos in violation of the law.

The 28-year-old is charged with hiring employees who had no training in asbestos removal to clean out a dumpster at a warehouse he owns in Livingston County. A grand jury indictment states the man now faces two counts of violating the Clean Air Act, which are punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The case was first investigated in December, when an inspector from the state visited the property after a complaint was lodged. The inspector saw large quantities of asbestos near a dumpster where employees worked. Nearly 100 bags of dried asbestos were found on site and were confirmed to be asbestos after testing.

The Clean Air Act is a federal law, but state laws also regulate how developers and construction workers must dispose of asbestos. It has been recognized as a major hazard, and while it is no longer actively being used, improperly disposing of the material can allow it to go airborne, which exposes all who come in contact with it to the risk of mesothelioma.

Many of the people who are diagnosed with mesothelioma today were exposed to asbestos as long as 50 years ago and didn't know the harmful effects it could cause. The next generation of mesothelioma patients may very well be unknowing people who were exposed to asbestos when workers improperly removed it, resulting in exposure.

Such exposure is preventable. Construction companies must do a better job of following the law. Regulations require that companies must hire specially-trained people who know how to remove asbestos without it damaging the area or getting into the air. When employers cut corners to save money, it puts everyone in danger. In other cases, apartment residents, students at school, or employees in older buildings where removal operations are ongoing could be unknowingly exposed to deadly conditions.

Researchers Working to Determine if Measles Help In Treating Mesothelioma

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:41:30 -0500

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic are looking to figure out if there is a connection between the measles virus and mesothelioma in order to possibly find a cure.

Our mesothelioma lawyers have reported time and time again on our Mesothelioma Lawyer Blog that researchers are picking up the pace in terms of looking at mesothelioma. While this is a rare form of cancer, it is one that is devastating because it has no cure.

Mesothelioma is a cancer caused primarily by exposure to asbestos. It is unique in that a person can be exposed to this natural mineral and not feel any symptoms of the cancer for 20 to 50 years later. Typically, this cancer isn't discovered until it is in its most advanced stages.

Symptoms include heavy coughing, fluid built-up in the lungs, chest pain and other signs that could point to a variety of ailments. That is another reason why this cancer is so dangerous -- it can be masked as something less serious.

But researchers are hopeful that recent work may be able to put a dent into the number of people who die from this form of cancer. Typically, people with mesothelioma are treated with chemotherapy because surgery often isn't a sound option. This is because the cancer tends to form near major organs, such as the heart, lungs and abdomen.

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic are reporting there has been an increase of mesothelioma cases in Minnesota, so the clinic there is doing extensive research to find a cure. This is attributed to taconite mining in the Iron Range region, which is a large economic booster, but has shown to have some unknown medical risks.

The latest version of the measles virus vector is an engineered version of the measles virus that is safe to the patient, but carries a toxic payload and is targetable. Doctors are able to conduct imaging studies to follow the virus in a treated patient. And they believe that they may be able to administer a more toxic version into a mesothelioma patient to destroy the cancerous tumor.

Researchers have found that mice with mesothelioma were given treatment that doubled the life span compared to mice that didn't receive any treatment. The potential treatment was found by lab workers testing drugs approved to treat other forms of cancer.

When applied to mesothelioma cells, it seemed to make a difference. But researchers warn that this isn't a cure for mesothelioma. Still, they hope that the treatment could improve for these patients.

One researcher said the hope is that within four years, after proper testing and trials, that treatment can be offered in the form of a pill that could outperform chemotherapy. That would allow patients to have a less turbulent time getting help for this cancer. They also predict that this treatment would increase the patient's lifespan by about six months.

Department of Defense to Spend $16 Million to Research Mesothelioma, Other Cancers

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:23:19 -0500

The Department of Defense is dedicating $16 million to research certain types of cancers, including mesothelioma.

This is critically important because many of our military veterans are suffering from mesothelioma after years of dedicated service to our country. Our mesothelioma lawyers are aware that this form of cancer can date back decades and many service men and women were exposed to asbestos before it became unpopular due to health risks.

The United States military was one of the largest users of asbestos, especially in Naval ships and shipyards. This natural mineral, which has a resistance to fire, was used in ships and in buildings on military bases and bases throughout the world.

While many veterans may have been exposed to asbestos decades ago, they are just now feeling the effects. Common symptoms of mesothelioma are trouble breathing, chest pain and fluid build-up, which are similar symptoms to lung cancer.

This is part of the reason mesothelioma is so dangerous. Many people tend to ignore the symptoms, assuming they are related to a different, already known illness or just a sign of old age. By the time a person goes to a doctor, who usually refers them to other specialists -- all of which takes time -- it's typically too late; the median life expectancy after diagnosis is 12 months.

Mesothelioma is incurable and it is 100 percent fatal. Usually, the lungs are the target of the asbestos-forming cancer, but also the heart or lining of the abdomen can be affected. This is a serious form of cancer unlike others because the treatment options are very limited. Operations are rarely a good idea in an older patient near a vital organ. Once it's discovered, it's typically well-developed.

But the Department of Defense is dedicating $16 million to researching cancers other than breast, prostate, lung and ovarian cancer programs that are already in place. The funds are to be used to research:

Mesothelioma

Blood cancers

Colorectal cancer

Genetic cancer research

Kidney cancer

Listeria vaccine for cancer

Melanoma and other skin cancer

Pancreatic cancer

Pediatric cancer

Radiation protection utilizing nanotechnology

Researchers are required to meet certain requirements in order to get funding to do the research. Information is available through the Congressionally Directed Medication Research Programs website.

This is a great opportunity for mesothelioma to get more attention and hopefully for more research to be done in order to find a cure or better early detection. Our mesothelioma lawyers are dedicated to keeping up with the latest research and most up-to-date information regarding this awful form of cancer.

The negligence of companies has caused the pain and suffering of many of our clients. We are dedicated to fighting on behalf of those whose lives have been cut short because of this preventable illness.