Man with Mesothelioma Refuses Autopsy in Asbestos-Related Lawsuit

James Ross, who is expected to pass away from mesothelioma, is refusing to undergo an autopsy after his death. The court is mandating this procedure in order for Ross’s estate to sue the company that allegedly exposed him to asbestos.

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that is almost exclusively caused by asbestos exposure. The disease typically takes anywhere between 20 and 50 years to develop, and symptoms do not arise until the advanced stages. As a result, most cases are diagnosed at a time when mesothelioma treatment options have become limited.

Ross worked around asbestos for several decades during his employment with Burlington Northern Railroad. He also worked on a home remodel during the 1960s and 1970s that he believes exposed him to the toxic substance.

Ross is objecting to the procedure of an autopsy on moral grounds and is asking for the requirement to be waived even though it will make his case more difficult to prove. The defendants, Kaiser Gypsum and T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition, believe the case should be dismissed if Ross does not comply with the request of the autopsy.

According to Washington Law, individuals in asbestos litigation can opt out of the autopsy if they cite religious reasons. However, Ross is objecting because he believes that an autopsy results in the destruction and disfiguration of the body.

Ross’s mesothelioma lawyer says, “It’s not a matter of nominal faith. This is directly related to constitutional rights since autopsies are seldom necessary to confirm diagnosis. Why shouldn’t Ross’s request to forego an autopsy be honored?”

The lawsuit has yet to move to trial because the defendants claim Ross has not been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma. Though Ross and his lawyer understand the importance of an autopsy in their case, they are willing to stand by their decision in order to help future cases and their right to deny an autopsy.

Ross’s lawyer believes he deserves the same treatment as any other individual that is excused from an autopsy on the grounds of religious reasons. He states, “Despite the greater burden of proof in proving that the plaintiff suffers from mesothelioma, autopsies are not required to prove diagnosis, rather, autopsies are helpful in resolving disputes only when diagnosis is already in question. That isn’t the case here.”

This entry was posted on Friday, November 14th, 2008 at 3:21 pm and is filed under Asbestos Exposure, Asbestos Litigation, Mesothelioma. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. Responses are currently closed, but you trackback from your own site.