Archive for the ‘Asbestos Legislation’ Category

The ASARCO trial is almost over, and an enormous number of environmental and asbestos-related lawsuit claims could depend on its outcome.

Closing arguments will be given on Thursday June 12, for the case in which Arizona-based mining company ASARCO alleges that its parent company, Grupo Mexico, systematically stripped its assets and left behind little more than a shell.

Grupo Mexico is a mining conglomerate headed by Chairman and Chief Executive German Larrea Mota-Velasco. The company is the world’s third largest producer of copper, and has mining interests in several South American locations.

ASARCO filed for bankruptcy in 2005, and during the process a bankruptcy judge removed Grupo Mexico’s control over the company due to allegations that the parent company was stripping ASARCO’s assets in an attempt to protect those assets from asbestos and environmental liability claims.

Among ASARCO’s claims are that Grupo Mexico knew it faced potential liabilities of more than $1 billion when it acquired the ASARCO company in 1999, and also that the parent company knew it might also shoulder the responsibility of cleaning up to twenty Superfund sites.

In addition, ASARCO claims that Grupo Mexico stripped the subsidiary of assets, including Peruvian copper mines that ASARCO once had a significant stake in and were the company’s most significant asset. ASARCO claims the parent company did this to prevent the mines being used to pay ASARCO’s creditors.

ASARCO also claims that Grupo Mexico used the fact that it controlled all the parties in the transaction to its own advantage, because it allowed the parent company to underpay ASARCO for the mines.

ASARCO’s legal battle began Monday May 12, with the beginning of a multi-billion dollar civil lawsuit against Grupo Mexico. Among those who testified at the trial was German Larrea Mota-Velasco, who repeatedly denied wanting the Andes copper mines in question, and who stated that he had never intended ASARCO should be forced into bankruptcy.

The outcome of this civil case will likely determine whether or not many of ASARCO’s creditors—including contaminated sites in many western states, as well as bond creditors and former employees and others suffering from asbestos-related diseases that the company is liable for—will see any money when the company emerges from bankruptcy. Some estimates say that ASARCO is responsible for tens of billions of dollars worth of liability, including several billion dollars worth of claims relating to exposure to toxins such as asbestos and lead.

The European Commission has granted Arenegyr, MolMed’s new mesothelioma drug “orphan” designation.

The Orphan designation is granted to drugs which are intended to be used in the treatment of life-threatening or chronic conditions which affect no more than five in ten thousand people. Designating Arenegyr as an Orphan drug means it may be possible to reduce the drug’s development time and make it available on the market more quickly.

The MolMed biotech company focuses on research and development of new anti-tumor therapy. Arenegyr is one a new class of anti-cancer drug called a “vascular targeting agent.” These types of drugs selectively target the vascular system of tumors, and prevent cancer cells from receiving vital blood, oxygen, and nutrients. Arenegyr is currently undergoing clinical trials both as a single chemotherapy agent and in combination with different drugs. The new chemotherapy drug is being trialed for colorectal cancer as well as mesothelioma treatment.

Malignant plural mesothelioma is a type of cancer which develops in the lining of the lungs as a result of exposure to asbestos. The cancer is relatively rare but highly lethal, as the cancer is both aggressive and resistant to treatment.

MolMed has said that their preliminary results show that Arenegyr has demonstrated both safety and efficacy, has promising survival rates, and may provide substantial clinical benefit. In addition, the drug appears to have low toxicity.

In the company’s malignant plural mesothelioma trial, Arenegyr was tested as a second line therapy in patients who had received prior chemotherapy treatment. MolMed’s results show overall improved survival rates, and almost doubled progression-free survival rates.

The company has also trialed Arenegyr for the treatment of colorectal cancer, which has a variety of different causes, one of which is known to be asbestos exposure. Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the world, with one million new cases diagnosed every year, and is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in the Western world. Most patients with advanced colorectal cancer develop resistance to commonly-used therapies, and there is therefore a strong need for new treatments.

MolMed’s colorectal cancer study included 43 patients, all of whom had received other types of prior treatments which had all failed. MolMed claims the preliminary data shows a fifty percent relative improved overall survival rate.

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MolMed Claudio Bordignon said of European Commission’s decision, “Orphan Drug designation for Arenegyr in mesothelioma represents a fundamental acknowledgement of the interesting early efficacy and safety results achieved in an ongoing Phase II trial…”

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and other public health advocates have this week announced the formation of the Committee to Ban Asbestos in America. The Committee is calling upon the United States Congress and the President to ban asbestos in American as soon as possible.

Formed from a collaboration between the John McNamara Foundation, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, and other advocates of public health, the Committee to Ban Asbestos in America has declared its dedication to seeing all uses of asbestos banned in America, and to eliminating asbestos-related diseases.

In its first press release, the Committee to Ban Asbestos in America points out that asbestos-related diseases kill 10,000 people every year, and that according to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the incidence rate of mesothelioma deaths has increased every year since 1980.

TC McNamara, Founder of The John McNamara Foundation, said, “Asbestos and the manufacturers of asbestos are responsible for creating the largest man made health crisis in this country. Asbestos went from being a miracle product to a serial killer which makes this legislation long overdue, but now is the time to ban asbestos in America.”

The John McNamara foundation was founded by the McNamara family, who formed the foundation after losing a family member to asbestos-related disease. The organization works to provide assistance and support to mesothelioma patients and family members, and to act as advocates for the banning of asbestos.

Linda Reinstein, Chairperson of the Committee to Ban Asbestos in America and director of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization said, “As recommended by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in 1976 the only way to prevent asbestos-related diseases is to ban its use, the CBAA supports language in a Committee Print before the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Environment & Hazardous Materials.”

“We are calling on the U.S. Congress and the President to do the right thing and ban asbestos in America and fund critical medical programs. Doctors and scientists agree: asbestos is a carcinogen and that there is no safe level of exposure. Preventing asbestos exposure is the only way to eliminate asbestos caused diseases. Recent ADAO product testing confirmed asbestos is still found in consumer products including toys.”

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization was founded in 2004 by asbestos disease suffers and their family members and advocates. The organization provides support and advocacy for people affected by asbestos-related diseases, to give people a united voice and ensure their rights are protected and represented. In addition, the organization helps raise public awareness of asbestos issues.

A decision from the 4th District Court of Appeal may help thousands of people with pending asbestos-related lawsuits, by invalidating a retroactivity law which was designed to limit the number of people who were eligible to sue.

The ruling was a reversal of thirteen decisions previously made by Palm Beach Circuit Judge Elizabeth Maass, which upheld the retroactivity law. Some of the cases on which the ruling was based date back as far as 1999. This week’s decision now allows plaintiffs the chance to revive those cases.

Not surprisingly, plaintiffs’ attorneys say the ruling is a new victory for thousands of people who are still waiting to have their cases heard in court.

“It certainly means that there are thousands of cases that were in the pipeline that were retroactively thrown out by this legislation that now may see new life,” said one attorney. Another said that the new ruling could revive as many as four thousand asbestos-related lawsuits across Florida.

On the other hand, lawyers working for defendant companies are less than thrilled. One said, the law was created to “put people who were sick at the head of the line,” but now that it’s been overturned, there is the potential for “people who aren’t really sick…[to be] cutting in the line ahead of people who are sick.”

If the decision is appealed, it would likely be based partially on a conflict between District Courts of Appeal in West Palm Beach and Miami. The 3rd District Court of Appeal in Miami concluded that the retroactivity law was valid, and since the 4th District Court ruling in West Palm Beach disagrees, the conflict could allow for an appeal and review by a higher court.

Judge Gary Farmer wrote for the 4th District Court’s unanimous decision that the Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act “may not constitutionally be applied to eliminate the existing vested rights in the lawsuits pending when the act became effective [on July 1, 2005].”

The Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act set new impairment standards on which plaintiffs’ eligibility to file suit became based.

People affected with asbestosis (a non-malignant disease) must have lost at least 20% of their breathing capacity, and people with lung cancer would have to have diminished breathing capacity and asbestosis (to rule out the effects of smoking as a causative agent in the cancer).

A key bill could, if passed, see asbestos and lead removed from children’s toys as early as next year.

The bill has been passed by a state senate and now goes to Governor M. Jodi Rell for her signature. If passed fully the bill will limit the amount of lead that can be present in toys manufactured or sold after July 1, 2009.

On July 1, 2009 it would also become illegal to manufacture or sell any children’s toys that contain asbestos. In addition, new standards for paint sprayed on children’s toys would be in effect.

Sarah Uhl, coordinator of the Coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut, said of the bill, “Now that the science has been allowed to emerge, policy makers have a responsibility to take immediate action to phase out bisphenol A and phthalates from common, everyday products like food and beverage containers.”

This issue is one of the most heavily lobbied of the year: several different toy bills were considered during the session.

The presence of asbestos, lead paint, and other toxins in children’s toys and other products marketed for use by children or parents has been high on the public radar recently.

Last year, California-based asbestos awareness group The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) ADAO announced they had sponsored tests on toys and household goods. Several of the items tested, including a toy crime-scene kit based on the CBS television series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, were found to contain asbestos.

In April of this year, the ADAO filed a lawsuit against CBS Corp and several toy retailers.

According to the lawsuit the lab tests showed the fingerprint dusting powder in the toy kits contained “substantial quantities of tremolite asbestos…one of the most lethal forms of asbestos.”

Planet Toys Inc, the toy manufacturer, removed the toy crime-scene kits from the market after the ADAO made their asbestos claims public. However, Planet Toys Inc said it had conducted multiple tests on the toys but had not discovered any asbestos.

The toy company said that some of the kits had been manufactured in China. Planet Toys Inc issued a “stop sale” on all CSI fingerprint kits “until further information can be ascertained as to the discrepancy between…respective test findings.”
The ADAO claims the defendants failed to warm consumers that the kits were contaminated with asbestos. Such warnings are required by state law. The ADAO wants a court order to stop the kits being sold unless they carry a warning.

Passage of the Connecticut bill would see toys such as this made illegal to manufacture or sell, regardless of the outcome of the ADAO lawsuit, if any asbestos is found in the products.

Twelve or more senators, accompanied by a XX grassroots lobby, are pushing for funds to be appropriated from the 2009 defense bill to be used for research on asbestos-related cancers such as mesothelioma.

Supporters say that Department of Defense funding is appropriate because one third—or more—of the people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma have either been in the Navy or have worked in Navy shipyards.

Mesothelioma is a devastating and highly lethal cancer caused only by asbestos exposure. Asbestos was used very widely in Navy ships constructed in or prior to World War II, meaning that Navy service men, and shipyard workers, were often exposed to enough asbestos to cause the development of mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases such as asbestosis.

According to Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation executive director Chris Hahn, more funding is needed because scientists who might have considered working in the field have been dissuaded because this type of research does not have a steady funding stream. According to Hahn, the mesothelioma research community would need around $29 million per year to make good progress in asbestos cancer research.

The Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation is one of the organizations behind a strong grassroots and legislative push to get more federal money backing research into treatment of asbestos-related cancers.

However, Hahn says that more important than having money earmarked for mesothelioma research is that mesothelioma itself get listed as a priority on the Pentagon’s peer-reviewed medical research program.

This, says Hahn, would allow researchers to compete for DOD research grants. The trouble is, Congress has a say in which diseases get on the priority list, as well as how much money is put towards the priority program. Congress appropriated $50 million for the program on the 2008 defense appropriations bill.

Hahn says it’s unclear how much grant money would go towards asbestos cancer research, but noted that last year was the first time supporters achieved a legislative victory. It’s also unclear whether Congress will pass a new 2009 appropriations bill or approve to continue funding at the 2008 level.

Last month, several senators wrote a letter to the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Appropriations Defense Panel, saying “Advancements in the early detection and treatment of this deadly cancer are greatly needed and the mesothelioma medical and research community is well-positioned to achieve this goal…Funding through the Department of Defense appropriations bill is an important demonstration of our nation’s commitment to addressing the tragedy of pleural mesothelioma and its disproportionate impact on those who serve our country.”

A Government Accountability Office report released Wednesday April 30 compares how the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) developed material designed to alert auto repair workers to the possibility of asbestos exposure in automotive brakes.

The report was prepared for members of Congress, including U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, chair of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

The report found that both agencies took several years to complete their reports, but while OSHA took five and a half years to publish its Asbestos Safety and Health Information Bulletin, OPPTS took only three and a half years to publish its information.

According to the GAO report, OSHA officials claimed that the length of time they took to complete the bulletin was partly due to “the need to address uncertainties regarding the prevalence of asbestos in brake products.”

However, the final GAO report noted that “timeliness seems especially relevant once an agency has determined that there is a need to communicate information about how people can protect themselves from health and safety hazards to which they might be exposed… Having such information might lead people to make different decisions or take different actions to protect themselves than they would in the absence of such information.”

Essentially, that people who know about the dangers of asbestos will act differently when they might be at risk of exposure. It seems obvious, but apparently it wasn’t so obvious to the OSHA.

The report also said that OSHA and OPPTS procedures for designing communication brochures and bulletins don’t currently have any time-oriented benchmarks. There are no regulations in place to ensure that communications like these are completed and disseminated to the public in a reasonable amount of time.

While it’s not necessarily possible to establish one single standard that can apply to every situation, the GAO report says that both OSHA and OPPTS could benefit from some time-frames or benchmarks to provide some motivation or impetus for getting informational bulletins out to the public more quickly.

The report also noted that “It should also be remembered that one of the reasons why agencies use alternatives to rulemaking—such as guidance or general communication products—is because these alternatives have the advantage of being less time consuming than rulemaking.”

In other words, the guidelines issued by these agencies are suggestions, not laws, and thus there is no reason for issuing such guidelines to take several years.

The GAO report recommends that OSHA’s Chief and EPA’s Administrator ensure that their key policies and procedures for preparing communications products includes time-oriented benchmarks to speed up the process of issuing essential information to the public.

Texas – Asbestos-related litigation has so far been worth billions of dollars in America. A new report released by economist M. Ray Perryman indicates that legal reforms in Texas that limited civil litigation has resulted in a boost for the state’s economy.

In the report entitled “A Texas Turnaround: The Impact of Lawsuit Reform on Business Activity in the Lone Star Sate,” Perryman says that the boost to the economy, is to the tune of $7.88 billion in annual spending, and almost 40,000 permanent jobs, in the city of San Antonio alone.

The study carried out by Perryman examined the impact of legislative measures that limit the damages that can be awarded in liability cases against Texas businesses. The liability limits include damages awarded in asbestos-related lawsuits as well as other civil damages suits.

The report notes some interesting facts about the relationship between civil litigation and the local economy.

For example, Perryman’s report says that between 1999 and 2003, medical insurance premiums doubled for many doctors in Texas—because of excessive litigation and excessively large jury awards. The result, said Perryman, was that many medical insurance carriers had begun to exit the market.

In addition, the report noted, medical specialists—including neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and obstetricians—had begun leaving the state, perhaps because of the increased costs of insurance. As a result, the shortage of qualified health professionals throughout the state had become severe.

However, after 2003 the picture changed. In that year, Texas lawmakers adopted a constitutional amendment that capped ‘non-economic’ damages in medical cases to $750,000. The legislature also moved to reduce what Perryman called “abusive” asbestos and silica-related lawsuits.

As a result, Perryman says, the entire state, and San Antonio in particular, has benefited from a substantial economic boost.

The report says that medical insurance rates became more competitive as a direct result of the reforms, and that doctors and hospitals used their liability insurance savings to expand and improve healthcare services.

Perryman’s report says that the lawsuit reform had the net result of creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in Texas, and that around 8.5% of the state’s economic growth over the past decade is a direct result of the lawsuit reforms.

Texas’ gain may mean losses for other states, however.

This might just mean that increasing numbers of people will take their cases to other states. Currently the law allows a lawsuit to be filed in any state as long as it can be proven that either the defendant or the plaintiff has a connection to that state.

This law already means that asbestos-related lawsuits are more likely to be filed in places such as Madison County, Illinois, which has a reputation for being sympathetic towards plaintiffs filing lawsuits against large corporations.

April 17, 2008, Minnesota - Last week the Minnesota House of Representatives passed the bill that would give the green light to the mesothelioma study on taconite miners in Minnesota’s Iron Range. However, the bill was strenuously opposed by several members of the House. This week, a compromise on funding might help the bill escape the threat of veto.

The research, which will be planned and executed by the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, is intended to determine why Iron Range taconite miners are at a vastly increased risk of developing mesothelioma, a type of asbestos cancer that is caused by asbestos exposure.

The Minnesota Department of Health has determined that at least 58 Iron Range taconite miners have been diagnosed with mesothelioma. Nationally, the average incidence of the disease is one case in every 500,000 people.

The bill passed by the Minnesota House of Representatives won by a majority vote of 88-45. The bill that was passed would use state workers’ compensation special fund money to fund the research, which will cost almost $5 million.

However, Gov. Tim Pawlenty had threatened to veto the bill, on the basis that the workers’ compensation special fund isn’t an appropriate source of funds for the study and that use of special fund money would drive up costs for businesses.

Pawlenty believes that the study should be funded not from the special fund, but via the state’s taxpayers, using funds from a state agency called Iron Range Resources. Some opponents to the use of the workers’ compensation fund say that Iron Range Resources funds are a more appropriate source because mesothelioma cases have been reported only in that region.

Opponents of the Iron Range Resources fund, however, say that using money from that source would unfairly impact on taxpayers who live in that area.

The compromise that has been proposed involves using money taken from a separate “assigned risk” workers’ compensation fund. That fund has higher reserves and is less likely to impact businesses. The funding compromise has gained broader approval than the previous proposal.

The University of Minnesota has attempted to obtain funding for similar research in the past, but has never received enough funding to complete an extensive study. Once the new study begins it will attempt to determine why taconite miners are developing mesothelioma at such a high rate, including determining the source of the substance that is causing the cancer. The study will also attempt to evaluate the level of risk for miners’ families, and the general public.

Minnesota - This week, the Minnesota House of Representatives has finally passed the bill that gives the green light to the mesothelioma study on taconite miners in Minnesota’s Iron Range. Taconite, a form of magnetic iron ore, has been mined in the area for decades.

However, Gov. Tim Pawlenty has already threatened to veto the bill, on the basis that the study is being funded from the wrong source.

The study will cost an estimated $4.9 million, and the House of Representatives has voted to fund the research via the state workers’ compensation special fund.

However, Gov. Tim Pawlenty believes that the study should be funded not from the special fund, but via the state’s taxpayers.

Those who oppose the use of special fund money would prefer the Iron Ranger miner study to be funded partially via funds from a state agency called Iron Range Resources. This agency is focused on the northeastern part of Minnesota rather than the entire state. Opponents to use the use of the workers’ compensation fund say it’s more appropriate to use Iron Range Resources funds because mesothelioma cases have been reported only in that region.

The research, which will be planned and executed by the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, is intended to determine why Iron Range taconite miners are at a vastly increased risk of developing mesothelioma, a type of asbestos cancer that is caused by asbestos exposure.

Jeffrey Mandel, an occupational physician in the School of Public Health, said “within the mining group, the rate of mesothelioma [is] significantly higher than it [is] supposed to be.” Since a preliminary study uncovered evidence of the high rate of mesothelioma, a more extensive research study has become a high priority.

The Minnesota Department of Health has determined that at least 58 Iron Range taconite miners have been diagnosed with mesothelioma. Nationally, the average incidence of the disease is one case in every 500,000 people.

The research will look at four different aspects relating to taconite mining in the Iron Range. Three will look at causes of death in Iron Range Miners, as well as the health of current and past miners, and of their families. A fourth study will compare air particle samples taken from northern Minnesota cities and compare those to Iron Range samples.

One of the principle objectives of the study is to determine exactly why Iron Range miners are developing mesothelioma: whether the increased incidence of the cancer comes from exposure to taconite, or whether the cancer is caused by exposure to a substance used in industrial processes.

The bill passed by the Minnesota House of Representatives won by a majority vote of 88-45. The University of Minnesota has attempted to obtain funding for similar research in the past, but has never received enough funding to complete an extensive study.