Archive for the ‘Asbestos Litigation’ Category

Dealing with the aftereffects of asbestos exposure is an exhausting and tragic business, as those who find themselves forced to file lawsuits in an attempt to claim compensation may often attest. Four new asbestos-related lawsuits recently filed in Madison County, Illinois means four new victims have been profoundly affected by exposure to the toxic substance.

One of the four involves secondary asbestos exposure. Missouri woman Kristy Ritz claims she was exposed to asbestos fibers from work clothing worn by her father and grandfather. The lawsuit, filed on September 17 in Madison County Circuit Court with the direction of a mesothelioma lawyer, claims that Ritz has been diagnosed with mesothelioma and that the disease was wrongfully caused.

The seven-count lawsuit filed by Kristy and Robert Ritz is seeking at least $100,000 in punitive and exemplary damages, and at least $150,000 in compensation.

A second suit was filed by Wisconsin woman Linda Lyon, who claims her malignant mesothelioma was wrongfully caused and developed after she worked in various jobs (between 1978 and 2006 ), including as an assembly line worker, packager, and dashboard hanger. She also claims to have suffered secondary exposure as a result of a family member having worked as an iron worker who unknowingly transporting asbestos fibers home on work clothing.

Lyon’s two-count lawsuit asks for at least $50,000 in compensation for her mental and physical suffering, loss of income, and medical expenses, as well as punitive damages.

Louisiana man George Harrigan is another plaintiff who claims to have suffered mesothelioma as a result of working with and around asbestos. Between 1943 and 1979 he worked as an electrician, laborer, and quality control specialist at various locations. According to his lawsuit, he worked with or around inhalable asbestos fibers, which caused him to develop mesothelioma.

The two-count lawsuit seeks at least $50,000 in compensation for mental and physical suffering, loss of income, and medical expenses. In addition, Harrigan’s suit asks for punitive damages, which effectively punish the defendants for their misconduct.

A fourth suit is brought by Illinois resident Mary Zerkle, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in May. According to the lawsuit filed on September 17, she suffered secondary asbestos exposure from 1950 onwards, when her father worked for Pabst Brewery as a machinist and transported asbestos fibers to the family home on work clothing.

As a result, Mary Zerkle claims, she has suffered mental and physical pain and has incurred medical expenses and suffered loss of income and earning capacity. Her eight-count lawsuit asks for at least $100,000 in exemplary damages and at least $200,000 in compensatory damages.

New asbestos lawsuits recently filed in Madison County, Illinois show that asbestos exposure can cause great tragedy in the lives of those affected. Asbestos exposure can occur not only to those who have worked with the substance, but also to their families.

Exposure to asbestos can cause a range of serious diseases, including asbestosis, a chronic, debilitating lung condition that reduces lung capacity. Asbestos exposure also causes the development of cancers such as lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Malignant mesothelioma is a deadly form of cancer which commonly affects the lining of the lungs, which is known as pleural mesothelioma. The disease usually starts to show symptoms between two and five decades after asbestos exposure occurs. As a result, the cancer is typically diagnosed in late stages of development and has become very resistant to mesothelioma treatments. Other cancers can develop as a result of asbestos exposure, including gastrointestinal cancer and laryngeal cancer.

A Missouri couple— Clyde and Doris Brookshier—filed their lawsuit on September 12 in Madison County Circuit Court, claiming that Clyde was diagnosed with mesothelioma on July 8, and that the disease was wrongfully caused. The eleven-count lawsuit claims that he was subjected to both primary and secondary asbestos exposure.

According to the Brookshier’s lawsuit, Clyde worked as a lineman, laborer, and repairman at various locations between 1957 and 1983, and during that time worked for Missouri Light & Power, the U.S. Army, and Sprint. The lawsuit also claims that Clyde suffered secondary asbestos exposure during the time his father worked as a lineman for Missouri Light & Power, prior to 1949.

For the pain, suffering, disablement, and disfigurement suffered by Clyde, the Brookshiers have filed an eleven-count lawsuit that seeks at least $100,000 in punitive and exemplary damages, as well as compensatory damages of at least $150,000.

Another lawsuit was recently filed by a Missouri woman who claimed her deceased husband had suffered from an asbestos-related disease that was wrongfully caused.

Dawn Koch claims her husband Stephen was diagnosed with mesothelioma on June 13, 2007, and died from the disease less than two months later. The lawsuit, filed on September 15, 2008, states that the exposure should have been foreseen and prevented by Koch’s employers.

For the pain and suffering her husband suffered, as well as healthcare and medical expenses incurred during his illness, Dawn Koch is seeking punitive and exemplary damages of at least $150,000.

An asbestos-related lawsuit recently filed in Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois claims a man who once worked as a laborer in the U.S. Marine Corp has developed lung cancer as a result of asbestos exposure.

Exposure to asbestos can cause a range of serious diseases, including asbestosis, a chronic, debilitating lung condition that reduces lung capacity. Asbestos exposure also causes the development of cancers such as lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Malignant mesothelioma is a deadly form of cancer which commonly affects the lining of the lungs, usually appearing between two and five decades after asbestos exposure. Pleural mesothelioma is the most common form of the cancer, accounting for approximately 75 percent of diagnosed cases. All forms of this aggressive disease are highly resistant to mesothelioma treatments, as the cancer is very rarely if ever cured.

Some of those exposed to asbestos have developed other cancers, such as colon cancer and gastrointestinal cancer. It has not been confirmed whether asbestos directly causes these cancers, but many studies have shown that asbestos exposure elevates the risk of developing them.

Because of this, some asbestos-related lawsuits are filed by people who have developed cancers other than mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure.

In this case, the plaintiff, David R. Knoblauch, claims that at some point during his career he was exposed to asbestos, which eventually caused him to develop lung cancer. He worked between 1959 and 1961 as a truck driver and laborer at various locations, including Comfort Heating, Amstan Supply, Portec, and in the United States Marines.

Knoblauch’s lawsuit claims that he suffered asbestos exposure as a result of working with or around the substance during the course of his employment, and that the asbestos exposure should have been anticipated and prevented by his employers.

The lawsuit claims that he has suffered from a disabling and disfiguring disease, has become liable for large amounts of money in medical expenses and healthcare, and has also lost income and earning capacity as a result of having developed lung cancer. In addition, Knoblauch claims he has suffered great physical and mental pain.

The six count lawsuit is seeking at least $100,000 in punitive and exemplary damages, compensatory damages of at least $150,000, as well as legal costs. Additionally, the lawsuit asks that punitive damages be awarded to punish the defendants—who include Ferris Kimball Company, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Sprinkmann Insulation and Young Insulation Group of St. Louis—for their misconduct in having caused asbestos exposure.

After much deliberation, the mesothelioma lawsuit filed by John Koonce has finally come to an end. He originally filed the lawsuit against John Crane Inc. and Garlock Sealing Technologies, but Garlock has recently been excused from the $4.39 million dollar verdict by the jury.

John Koonce, a former shipyard worker for Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corp., originally contracted the asbestos-related disease in April 2006. His doctors and mesothelioma lawyers believe the asbestos exposure he experienced came from working in boiler rooms on Liberty ships being repaired between 1968 and 1971.

John Crane Inc., who is now responsible for all of the $4.39 million, has asked Circuit Court Judge David F. Pugh to set aside the results of the case. They believe the jury was wrong to place all the blame on one company when Koonce also used products containing asbestos from another company.

In previous cases involving the two companies, both were assigned separate damages to pay. John Crane Inc. and Garlock Sealing Technologies specialized in manufacturing asbestos-laden parts, including gaskets and packing material.

John Crane’s attorney said, “The jury’s utter disregard of the evidence regarding Mr. Koonce’s exposure to Garlock products resulted in John Crane being apportioned 100 percent fault and being left to bear the entire $4.39 million verdict alone.”

John Crane is asking for a new trial because the jury’s verdict went “against the evidence.” They also stated judge Pugh should reapportion the verdict between the two companies.

In regards to the apportionment of the verdict, Koonce’s attorney said, “The jury made a legitimate finding that the blame for Koonce’s malignant mesothelioma cannot be sliced between the defendants. It’s a finding that the jury was entitled to make.”

Koonce’s attorney plans to file a response to the motion of a new trial as soon as he can, but also wishes to take some time to rest before tackling the case again.

This week in Jefferson County District Court, Texas, resident Harvey Williams has filed an asbestos-related lawsuit against a total of 53 defendant corporations.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants conspired together to suppress and conceal information about the dangers of asbestos and asbestos exposure.

Asbestos was once prized for its durability and fire-resistant properties. During much the twentieth century, the toxic substance was used in the manufacture of a long list of products, including insulation, siding, roofing materials, appliances, brake pads, and floor tiles, just to name a few.

It wasn’t until the 1960s and 1970s that the truth about the dangers of asbestos began to enter public consciousness. Over the next several decades, evidence has supported that many companies knew about the dangers of asbestos, but neglected to inform employers of the risks.

Exposure to asbestos is known to cause a range of serious diseases, including asbestosis, a debilitating lung condition that reduces lung capacity, and mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer that most commonly affects the lining of the lungs. Because of the latency period associated with these diseases, symptoms typically do not appear until several decades after initial asbestos exposure. This often creates a problem for doctors, as curative mesothelioma treatments rarely have an effect with such a late diagnosis.

According to the lawsuit, companies such as General Electric, Viacom, and Zurn Industries continued to manufacture, distribute, and sell asbestos-containing products despite knowing the harmful effects associated with the substance.

The lawsuit states, “Defendants knowingly conspired among themselves to cause the plaintiff’s injuries, diseases, and illness by exposing him to asbestos. Defendants committed conspiracy by willfully misrepresenting and suppressing the truth as to the risks and dangers associated with asbestos.”

In addition, the suit claims the defendants were in possession of scientific data concerning the health risks of asbestos for several decades, but conspired to conceal the data.

The suit is stating that Williams was “Of the opportunity of informed free choice,” and that “Each defendant violated federal and state regulations relating to asbestos exposure.”

Williams is claiming he has suffered from mental and physical pain, lost income and earning capacity, and has had to pay substantial amounts of money for medical bills, which all resulted from him developing malignant mesothelioma.

A man in Rockdale, Texas, who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, has recently won an important pre-trial motion in Houston’s Multijurisdictional Litigation Court. The judge hearing the case ruled in favor of the former Alcoa employee, in what may become a landmark ruling.

The unnamed man is suing the company after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer almost exclusively caused by asbestos exposure. He worked at the Rockdale Alcoa plant for a total of 27 years, and claims he was exposed to asbestos during the course of his employment.

Mesothelioma is a particularly devastating type of cancer, fatal in virtually all cases due to its ability to spread aggressively and resist treatment.

Alcoa asked for summary dismissal of the case, on the grounds that the company had not specifically intended to cause any harm to the man.

The mesothelioma victim’s council said of the case, “There’s a provision of the Texas constitution that says you have the right to bring an intentional tort claim against an employer while you’re alive. This is huge. It opens the door for living Alcoa claimants who might be sick with an asbestos-related disease and want to have their cases heard before they die.”

Alcoa argued the claim was invalid because the company’s intent to harm the employee could not be proved.

According to Texas law, an employee can sue for intentional harm, but not negligence, as long as they are still alive. However, an employee’s surviving family member can make a claim on their behalf for punitive damages.

The man’s mesothelioma lawyer argued if this was the case, then nobody in the state of Texas could ever make a claim, saying, “No reputable doctor can say he knows for certain a specific individual will get sick if exposed to asbestos because people are individually susceptible.”

If Alcoa’s interpretation of the law had been upheld by the Judge, many Texas workers might have been denied access to the ability to make a claim in court.

The man’s lawyer believes the evidence bears out the claim of intention, stating, “Alcoa’s own documents and testimony establish that it was substantially certain that some of its employees, like our client, would develop asbestos-related diseases if exposed to asbestos.”

In addition, the lawyer believes the evidence shows that Alcoa knew of the dangers as early as the 1950s, but deliberately concealed the information from its employees.

John O. Koonce, a past shipyard worker, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2006. During his employment as a boilermaker, he was completely unaware about the asbestos exposure he was experiencing.

Koonce’s mesothelioma lawyers believe the exposure occurred between 1968 and 1971, as he was working in ship boiler rooms at Drydock Corp. and Norfolk Shipbuilding.

As a shipyard worker, he was trained to be on the lookout for dangerous uses of machinery, and even dangerous smells around the workplace. However, his employers neglected to mention he might be breathing in toxic asbestos fibers that one day may result in cancer.

Currently, the lawsuit he filed a while ago is close to ending and the jury must decide who is at fault for his tragic situation.

Koonce’s attorneys have laid much of the blame to John Crane, Inc., an Illinois company that once made asbestos-containing products such as packing material and gaskets. According to reports, many of these products were used at the locations where Koonce was employed.

In addition, the attorneys believe John Crane and other companies deliberately ignored evidence that presented the dangers of asbestos exposure.

However, John Crane attorneys believe the dangers of the substance were not clearly stated at the time. The company says they failed to warn workers and people using its products because they didn’t know those dangers existed.

Koonce’s attorneys have asked for compensation to the tune of $14 million. This is meant to cover for his pain and suffering, loss of income and enjoyment of life, and for the fact that his life will be cut short because of the asbestos exposure he experienced.

Naturally, John Crane’s attorneys disagree that such a sum is warranted or necessary, and they will continue to say that the company had no firm proof that asbestos was dangerous at the time they were manufacturing their products.

A new asbestos-related lawsuit filed in Madison County, Illinois is showing the world that people exposed to asbestos are not only at risk for developing mesothelioma cancer. Other cancers, including lung, gastrointestinal, and colon cancer may be caused by asbestos exposure.

Despite its known toxicity, asbestos was heavily used throughout the twentieth century in construction materials and thousands of other products. Due to this widespread usage, thousands of people across the country have paid the price with their health, dying from serious and painful diseases such as malignant mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis.

These three diseases have come to be considered as signature diseases of asbestos exposure. But some of those exposed to asbestos have developed cancers outside of these three, including prostate, breast, and colon cancers. It is not known whether asbestos directly causes these cancers, but many studies have shown asbestos exposure elevates the risk of developing them.

As a result, some asbestos-related lawsuits are filed by people who have developed cancers other than mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure. One such lawsuit was filed by Illinois resident Alan Howard, who claims that he developed colon cancer as a result of asbestos exposure.

The lawsuit, filed in Madison County Circuit Court on August 20, names a total of 60 defendant corporations, claiming that each either manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing products that contributed to Howard’s disease.

According to the lawsuit, Howard was diagnosed with colon cancer in July 2007. The suit claims the defendants failed to provide suitable instructions for working with asbestos safely and wrongfully manufactured asbestos-containing products when an adequate substitute for asbestos was available.

Howard and his wife claim they both have suffered as a result of Howard’s colon cancer. Howard says he has suffered severe physical and mental pain, and has lost the ability to earn income since he is now unable to work. In addition, treatment measures have been very expensive. Howard’s wife is also seeking damages for the loss of her husband’s companionship, society, and services.

The office of Attorney General Martha Coakley has reached a settlement with Sears, Roebuck and Co. regarding alleged violations of the Massachusetts Clean Air Act and the Consumer Protection Act. The settlement was reached on August 19.

According to a press release, Sears improperly removed asbestos from a Pembroke home in October 2004. Under the terms of the settlement, Sears will pay a civil penalty of $55,000 to the family living in the home. In addition, the company has agreed to adopt practices and policies to ensure improper asbestos removal is not carried out again.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner, Laurie Burt, said, “The improper removal and handling of asbestos is a serious matter which potentially exposes families and workers to serious diseases such as mesothelioma. Businesses that fail to follow the asbestos regulations will end up paying significant penalties, as well as higher costs for expanded cleanup and decontamination work.”

The original complaint was filed in 2004, after Blane and Rachel Provost contacted Sears for an estimate of the removal and replacement of their old boiler, which contained asbestos insulation.

A Sears representative originally told the Provosts that the company could complete the project affordably, and hired two subcontractors to carry out the work. The Provosts were also told the contractors would have the proper licenses and training to safely complete the project.

However, the subcontractors hired by the Sears representative were not trained, licensed, or qualified to handle asbestos removal. In addition, Sears and the subcontractors failed to notify the Department of Environmental Protection that asbestos handling and removal was involved.

Surely of greater concern to the Provosts is that the subcontractors did not use proper asbestos handling procedures. The old boiler was removed and left in the basement with its chamber exposed, and asbestos material was scattered on the basement floor. To make matters worse, subcontractors used their bare hands to scoop up the material and store it in black plastic trash bags. These procedures are dangerous practices that can easily result in the development of asbestos cancer.

Attorney General Martha Coakley said of the incident, “Homeowners and their families should not be faced with a health risk when they purchase common household appliances like a new boiler. Asbestos removal requirements were enacted to protect public health and safety. Businesses who are contracted to perform work inside residential homes must properly train and supervise their employees so that homeowners are given accurate information and not put at risk.”

Recently in Madison County District Court in Illinois, two new lawsuits were filed involving patients who have developed mesothelioma cancer as a result of asbestos exposure.

The first was filed by Seals Glenn, Jr., who currently resides in Georgia. Glenn’s lawsuit names a total of 66 defendant corporations, and claims they failed to provide any warnings about the hazards of working around and with asbestos.

According to the lawsuit, Glenn worked between 1949 and 1994 in various positions, including carpenter’s apprentice, deckhand, truck driver, laborer, and fabricator. The majority of his work was located in both Georgia and Illinois. During his employment, Glenn claims he was exposed to toxic substances, primarily airborne asbestos fibers and dust.

Defendants in the lawsuit include Bondex International, CBS, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, General Motors, John Crane, Owens-Illinois, and Pfizer.

Glenn was diagnosed with mesothelioma on April 28, 2008. He is seeking damages of at least $550,000 for negligence, willful and wanton acts, conspiracy, and negligent spoliation of evidence.

The second lawsuit involves Sharleen Craig of Virginia, who has filed an asbestos-related lawsuit that names a total of 13 defendant companies. The lawsuit was filed on August 14, and claims she developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos. Craig was diagnosed with the rare disease on May 6, 2008.

Craig was employed between 1944 and 1993 in several different positions, including a janitor, waitress, cook, and garment inspector. She claims that during her employment she was exposed to asbestos products.

According to the lawsuit, the defendant companies are being targeted because they failed to exercise ‘ordinary care’ with the use of asbestos. Craig says their products should not have been manufactured with asbestos because adequate substitutes were available, and many mesothelioma lawyers across the nation would agree.

Craig is seeking compensation for mesothelioma treatment, loss of income and earning capacity, and mental and physical suffering.