Plaintiff Allowed To File An Asbestos-Mesothelioma Lawsuit Years After Filing An Earlier Asbestos Lung Cancer Case

Some States Have A “Two Disease” Or “Separate Disease” Rule That Permits The Second Case To Go Forward

The Daley v. A.W. Chesterton opinion which was handed down by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2012 discusses the so-called “two disease” or “separate disease” rule.  In that case an individual diagnosed with mesothelioma was allowed to file a new asbestos lawsuit even though he had previously sued and recovered for asbestos-related lung cancer in a separate case about ten years earlier.

The “two disease” or “separate disease” rule, as applied in this Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion, permitted the plaintiff to file a new lawsuit for a malignant asbestos-related disease, i.e., mesothelioma, even though he had previously filed a legal action for a different malignant asbestos-related disease, i.e., lung cancer, based on this reasoning:

  1. the second or subsequent lawsuit is based on a separate and distinct disease;
  2.  which was not known to the plaintiff back at the time when his first action was filed; and,
  3.  the asbestos-mesothelioma “second” case was filed within the applicable statute of limitations period.

Only certain states follow the “two disease” or “separate disease” rule, so it is important to check with an experienced asbestos attorney if you have a situation where mesothelioma is diagnosed after there had been an earlier asbestos lawsuit involving lung cancer or asbestosis.


 Mesothelioma, Asbestos, and Legal Compensation: Basic Facts

Asbestos-Mesothelioma Case Evaluation Form
Free.  Confidential.  No Obligation.

Secondhand Asbestos Exposure, Or Household / Indirect Exposure To Asbestos, Might Give Rise To An Asbestos Lawsuit For Legal Compensation

Family members of workers who worked with or around asbestos-containing products may have had so-called secondhand asbestos exposure — also called household or indirect exposure to asbestos dust.  For example:

  • A wife washing the asbestos worker’s dusty clothing; or, even more unexpectedly,
  • The children giving a welcome-home hug each day to their father while he was still in his work clothes laden with asbestos dust.

Often times it can be determined how the asbestos exposure during childhood happened and, in turn, an asbestos lawsuit for legal compensation can be filed on behalf of the mesothelioma victim or her surviving family.

The primary issue in secondary exposure asbsestos-mesothelioma lawsuits is whether there was a legal duty to warn going from the asbestos worker’s employer to the secondarily exposed person, such as the worker’s wife, in the state(s) where the person had household or indirect exposures to asbestos dust.

As of October 2012, 16 states have court decisions addressing this basic legal liability issue in asbestos-mesothelioma secondary exposure lawsuits.

The following states permit secondary exposure claims:  Illinois; New Jersey; Louisiana; Tennessee; California; and, Washington.

And these states do not allow these types of asbestos-mesothelioma lawsuits: Delaware; Ohio; Kansas; Iowa; Kentucky; Michigan; Texas; New York; Georgia; and, Maryland.

The remaining 34 U.S. states have not had a final court ruling, yet, about whether a person diagnosed with mesothelioma can file a secondhand asbestos lawsuit and hold an employer of their husband or father, i.e., the asbestos worker,  legally responsible for that asbestos cancer.


 Mesothelioma, Asbestos, and Legal Compensation: Basic Facts

Asbestos-Mesothelioma Case Evaluation Form
Free.  Confidential.  No Obligation.

Asbestos Lung Cancer Cases: Number Of Filed Lawsuits Increasing Across The U.S.

In Recent Years And Going Forward, Malignant Claims Such As Mesothelioma And Asbestos-Related Lung Cancer Will Continue To Lead Asbestos Litigation New Filings

While malignant mesothelioma (“meso”) claims get the most attention in the ongoing asbestos litigation, the asbestos lung cancer lawsuits are significant legal claims, also.  These “other” asbestos-related cancer cases have been increasing in number over recent years and that trend is expected to continue in the U.S. over the next several years.

According to the American Lung Association Fact Sheet, in 2012 an estimated 226,160 new cases of lung cancer will be diagnosed.

Where that diagnosis was made in a worker who might have been exposed to asbestos 20 years or more ago, it is likely that this past asbestos exposure played a role in causing the asbestos worker’s lung cancer.

This asbestos “link” to the lung cancer would be present even if the worker smoked cigarettes insofar that the combination of smoking and asbestos exposure acts in synergy to greatly multiple the risk of that worker developing lung cancer.  Put differently, there is a greater risk of lung cancer when there is asbestos exposure for a worker who also smoked — compared to what the lung cancer risk would be in a person who just smoked cigarettes or was just exposed to asbestos in the past.

In the leading asbestos filing jurisdictions of New York City, Philadelphia, Madison County, Illinois, and California there has been a marked increase in the number of asbestos lawsuits filed that involve lung cancer — with this upward trend is seen less obviously all across the country.

And, in fact, we have been getting a growing number of Case Evaluation submissions for possible asbestos-related lung cancer lawsuits this past year.

We have more information about asbestos lung cancer and mesothelioma available at out Asbestos-Mesothelioma.com web site.

See also the Lung Cancer Awareness page at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention web site.


 Mesothelioma, Asbestos, and Legal Compensation: Basic Facts

Asbestos-Mesothelioma Case Evaluation Form
Free.  Confidential.  No Obligation.

Asbestos settlements part of ‘global’ deal

Quoted from http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_b01405d8-1b0e-11e2-b712-001a4bcf887a.html

 

Asbestos settlements part of ‘global’ deal

Victims to receive varying amounts of compensation

By LYNNETTE HINTZE/The Daily Inter Lake Daily Inter Lake

Lawyers for Libby asbestos victims are working toward settlements with W.R. Grace & Co., BNSF Railway Co. and certain insurance companies in what Grace has deemed a “global resolution.”

The settlements would give victims varying amounts of financial compensation for exposure to toxic asbestos dust linked to the former Grace vermiculite mine near Libby.

Since the extent of the disease and death caused by asbestos exposure came to light in late 1999, the Center for Asbestos Related Diseases clinic in Libby has acquired a caseload of more than 2,800 patients and has continued to add new patients.

Grace filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2001 in response to a growing number of asbestos claims. An Asbestos Personal Injury Committee was set up as part of the reorganization.

Compensation for victims has been a long time coming, and there’s no indication of when the settlements will be finalized.

[Article continues at original source]

Part of nearly $90 million asbestos judgment vacated by judge

Quoted from http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/part-of-nearly-million-asbestos-judgment-vacated-by-judge/article_6439289c-f7bd-11e1-b26b-001a4bcf887a.html

Part of nearly $90 million asbestos judgment vacated by judge

2012-09-05

By Edith Brady-Lunny

BLOOMINGTON — A McLean County judge has reduced the jury award related to a 2011 verdict against four companies accused of exposing a man to asbestos from almost $90 million to $8.4 million.

Charles Gillenwater, 59, worked as pipe fitter when he contracted mesothelioma in the 1970s while working at several work sites, including Illinois State University, Bridgestone-Firestone and The Eureka Co., according to the lawsuit filed by Bloomington lawyers James Wylder and Andrew Kelly.

Judge Scott Drazewski ruled Aug. 31 that judgments against Pneumo Abex LLC, Honeywell International and Owens-Illinois are vacated.

A judgment against John Crane Inc. for $8.4 million was allowed to stand.

[Article continues at original source]

Ill. court reverses $17.8M asbestos verdict

Quoted from http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/237202-ill.-court-reverses-17.8m-asbestos-verdict


Ill. court reverses $17.8M asbestos verdict

BY BETHANY KRAJELIS

 

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (Legal Newsline) – A split panel of the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court has reversed a $17.8 million verdict in a McLean County asbestos conspiracy case.

The majority of the panel relied on the Fourth District’s 2011 ruling in Rodarmel v. Pneumo Abex to come to its conclusion that plaintiff Jayne Menssen did not present sufficient evidence to prove that Honeywell International and Pneumo-Abex conspired with other corporations to suppress the health hazards of asbestos exposure.

[Article continues at original source]

A mesothelioma case at Todd Shipyards

Quoted from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/edcetera/2018887143_a_mesothelioma_case_at_todd_sh.html

A mesothelioma case at Todd Shipyards

Posted by Bruce Ramsey

Here’s a case about a business’s responsibility for an injured worker, as came down from the Washington Supreme Court Thursday, Aug. 9 (Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings).

From 1978 to 2004, Leo Macias was tool keeper at Todd Shipyards in Seattle. As part of his job he would take respirators from shipyard workers who had been working with asbestos and were finishing their shifts. He would chuck the respirators into a basket, sometimes causing “little poofs of dust.” Later he would go through the respirators, taking out the dusty filters and throwing them away. In 2008, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a type of cancer typically caused by asbestos dust.

[Article continues at original source]

Pennsylvania High Court Tosses ‘Any Dose’ Asbestos Theory

Quoted from http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/east/2012/05/29/207526.htm

Pennsylvania High Court Tosses ‘Any Dose’ Asbestos Theory

By RON TODT | May 29, 2012

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that civil lawsuit plaintiffs alleging asbestos-related ailments cannot submit scientific testimony asserting that even the smallest exposure to the material could cause cancer.

The court said in a 6-0 opinion issued Wednesday that plaintiffs must show some relationship between the amount of exposure and development of the disease.

The ruling came in a western Pennsylvania auto mechanic’s 2005 lawsuit alleging that exposure to asbestos from brake lining repair over 44 years had caused his mesothelioma.

A Superior Court panel said a jury should evaluate the “any exposure” testimony, but the high court said the trial judge “was right to be circumspect” about the underlying scientific methodology.

The Philadelphia Inquirer says attorneys for the plaintiff did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Mesothelioma patients deserve better than wasteful legal games

Quoted from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120422,0,1097806.column

Mesothelioma victims deserve better than wasteful legal maneuvers

The macabre zero-sum game squanders millions of dollars and blights the mesothelioma patients’ final days. The obvious alternative is to deal with asbestos claims administratively.

John Johnson

A video still shows John Johnson during the 12th day of his deposition in his asbestos-exposure lawsuit. Johnson collapsed within 40 minutes of answering the final question, and he died the next day. (April 19, 2012)

 

By Michael Hiltzik

April 22, 2012

 

John Johnson died three months ago, his body racked with malignant mesothelioma, a disease that’s almost always caused by asbestos exposure. The Marine veteran had sued dozens of companies he believed shared responsibility for his condition, but he never got his day in court.

Here’s the horrific question now: Did asbestos industry lawyers deliberately drive Johnson to his death by putting him through a brutal series of depositions so their clients would save money?

That’s what his family, his doctor and his lawyers assert. Despite affidavits from his doctor stating that 12 hours of depositions over a few weeks would be about as much as the 69-year-old’s health could stand, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge allowed the companies he was suing a total of 25 hours.

Johnson put off returning to the hospital so he could appear at every session, including the last, on Jan. 23. His face contorted in pain, he gasped out answers to questions from the last of the dozens of defense attorneys in attendance. Less than 40 minutes later, he collapsed.

[Article continues at original source]

Pfizer Isn’t Shielded From Some Asbestos Claims, Court Rules

Quoted from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-10/pfizer-isn-t-shielded-from-some-asbestos-claims-court-rules.html

Pfizer Isn’t Shielded From Some Asbestos Claims, Court Rules

By Tiffany Kary and Bob Van Voris – Apr 10, 2012 1:48 PM ET

Pfizer Inc. (PFE) isn’t entitled to protection from some asbestos claims related to its non- operating bankrupt Quigley Co. unit, according to a federal appeals court ruling.

Quigley, founded in 1916, made three products for the steel industry from the 1940s to the 1970s that contained asbestos. Pfizer bought Quigley in 1968, and the company stopped most operations in 1992, filing for bankruptcy in 2004. Pfizer has said it never made or sold any Quigley products, and some claimants hadn’t released Pfizer from alleged “derivative liability.”

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein that found Quigley’s bankruptcy barred certain lawsuits against Pfizer. A May 2011 decision in district court reversed the order, and Pfizer had appealed that ruling.

[Article continues at original source]

Law Offices of Thomas J. Lamb, P.A.
1908 Eastwood Road, Suite 225
Wilmington, NC 28403
Tel: (800) 426-9535
[email protected]
Disclaimer and Copyright