Archive for the ‘New York’ Category

Treating the many men and women who responded to the emergency situation following the 9/11 attacks and the collapse of the World Trade Center is an expensive business—so much so that many first responders are still waiting for medical treatment.

Today, medical, health, and safety experts urged congress to approve new legislation which would help establish a permanent system of monitoring the health of first responders, and provide a permanent health care program for people exposed to the toxic atmosphere at Ground Zero.

The collapse of the World Trade Center buildings created and dispersed enormous clouds of dust that were full of toxins and chemicals, including asbestos dust, lead dust, glass fibers, and toxic gases. As many as 100,000 responders, including paramedics, rescue workers, and firefighters, were exposed to the toxic mix.

Many people who breathed in that dust—including area residents and office workers and well as responders—have since developed serious health problems such as asbestosis and certain types of cancer. Exposure to the traumatic events of the day and the days after has also caused many people to suffer from anxiety, depression, and episodes of trauma.

A study completed in 2006 by doctors at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City found that a staggering 70% of responders they examined were suffering serious health problems as a result of their exposure.

Nearly seven years after the tragedy, however, a guaranteed, comprehensive medical treatment program still does not exist.

Even worse, funding for medical care for people who need such medical treatment has actually been cut over the last year. In 2007 congress approved $108 million to be spent on healthcare for 9/11 responders. In 2009 Bush cut that figure by 77%, to just $25 million.

Yesterday the Centers for Disease Control announced it would contribute a grant of $30 million to New York hospitals providing medical treatment for people affected by health problems relating to 9/11. While these sums of money seem substantial, in the long term it’s nowhere near enough.

In the two years following the attacks, the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund paid more than $7 billion to almost 5,600 victims and survivors. However, because the fund was required by law to stop accepting claims in December 2003, people who developed disease symptoms after that date might be ineligible to claim.

Some people have been driven to extreme measures—including lawsuits—to try and claim compensation to pay for medical expenses. Kenneth R. Feinberg, the administrator of the 9/11 compensation fund, believes that an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 people may develop related health issues over the next five to ten years.

Schenectady, New York – The Thomas O’Brien Academy of Science and Technology was last week forced to close for the upcoming school year due to asbestos-related problems. The Albany District school must undergo considerable asbestos remediation before it can open again.

Parents were later informed of the school’s problems at a meeting on Friday July 25. Parents learned that the school’s five hundred students, in pre-kindergarten to grade six, will be relocated to other schools while the Academy is closed. According to school district spokesperson Ron Lesko students will be relocated to the former Philip Schuyler Elementary School for the duration of the work on the school.

Work began on the Academy and it’s ‘parent’ school Giffen Elementary School when the school year ended in June, as part of a general improvement project. The Academy was shut down at that time to complete a small asbestos remediation project.

However, when the crews began their work, they discovered that there was much more asbestos in the Academy building than was previously thought. According to Ron Lesko, asbestos was found in places from which it was thought it had been removed in the late 1980s.

Some parents were worried at the news that asbestos was a problem at the school, but most are pleased at how the issue has been handled. The Academy, they say, has done the best it could in a bad situation, and has handled the problems promptly. A few parents are angry, however, because the first they heard of the asbestos problem and the closure of the school was on the evening news.

Asbestos issues are increasingly prevalent in schools across the country. The substance was once heavily used in construction materials of many different types, but is now becoming a serious problem. As these buildings age the risk of asbestos exposure increases, and removal is a costly procedure.

Federal law requires that all schools adhere to Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) guidelines which require schools to create and maintain asbestos management plans. In addition, schools must be inspected every three years, and asbestos management plans must be available for public review by staff and parents.

After the discovery of the extra asbestos at the Thomas O’Brien Academy, air samples were taken in school buildings, but showed there were no elevated asbestos levels present.

School officials estimate that the Academy will reopen for the 2009-2010 school year. Officials will meet with parents again this week to discuss more issues relating to the asbestos and the closure of the school.

Asbestos is the cause of mesothelioma, one of the deadliest cancers around. In the late 70’s asbestos was largely banned but unfortunately products already being produced were not recalled and asbestos still lingers in many peoples homes walls and office buildings. The following is a brief recap of how asbestos and mesothelioma can effect you today.

If you live in an older home and are planning on tearing down walls in efforts of remodeling, it is encouraged you hire a professional to inspect your home first. By stirring up asbestos, you open the possibility of asbestos particles entering the ventilation system, which can effect everyone in the house.

One such recent case was on a scientology cruise ship that has entertained the elite of the religion, including Tom Cruise. It turns out that the ship not only contained a dangerous amount of asbestos but the ship captain knew about it.

This same sort of thing applies to office buildings. In New York City, for example, thousands of people were exposed to asbestos when the world trade center collapsed. The entire city was filled with a cloud of dust, and to varying degrees, asbestos.

Hurricane Katrina was another huge disaster that contaminated many areas with asbestos. Even in parts of Illinois around Lake Michigan (Chicago area) residents have been warned about asbestos exposure at the beaches.

Cancer from this exposure is rare but very possible and mesothelioma treatment is best when found early, so it’s suggested if you suspect exposure has happened, to see a doctor immediately. It should be noted, though, that if you are exposed it may take 10-15 years to appear so stay on your toes.

Studies have recently shown that talc can cause a cancer similar to mesothelioma as well. Just like asbestos, it can cause mini cuts in your lungs or in the case of females, the ovaries. This is big news as everyday products contain talc such as baby powder, make-up and hundreds of other products. Many people use baby powder to stay fresh where the sun does not shine but based on the studies, it seems this can be a very bad thing, especially for women.

So the moral of the story is that you should stay up-to-date on the causes and risks of asbestos exposure and mesothelioma. If you should discover exposure of any kind, than see a doctor and more than likely you will be ok.

http://www.fccc.edu

Joyce G. Nichols, Jr., once an employee of the Illinois Central Railroad, claims that exposure to toxins at his former jobsite has affected his life severely—so much so that he is suing the company, and seeks $100,000 or more in damages.

Nichols worked for the Illinois Central Railroad between 1964 and 1982, and was employed as a carman. He claims that during the course of his employment he was exposed to a variety of toxins, including asbestos, diesel exhaust, environmental tobacco smoke, and various other toxic dusts, fumes, and gases.

According to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act lawsuit which Nichols filed on July 2 in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Illinois, Nichols has developed permanent lung injuries due to the workplace exposure he suffered, and may one day develop cancer as a result of these lasting injuries.

Nichols also claims that he suffers from “extreme nervousness as a result of his reasonable concern over the prospects of developing cancer caused by silica, asbestos, environmental tobacco smoke, and/or diesel fumes.”

The lawsuit claims that the Illinois Central Railroad failed to provide Nichols with a safe workplace environment, failed to provide him with proper safety equipment, failed to provide Nichols with proper workplace ventilation, and failed to determine the contamination level of railroad equipment and buildings with regular inspections.

In addition, the lawsuit claims that the company failed to warn Nichols that exposure to substances such as asbestos, silica, and diesel fumes was dangerous and could have lasting negative effects on his health.

Nichols is seeking at least $100,000 in damages, plus his legal costs, as compensation for the toxin exposure he suffered, for the damage already done to his health, and in compensation for the fact that he may one day develop cancer as a result.

The question is, how will a jury view the fact that Nichols is seeking compensation for a disease which he has not yet developed?

Exposure to asbestos is the only known cause of a serious and lethal cancer called mesothelioma, for which there is no cure. However, not all people who are exposed to asbestos will develop mesothelioma. A jury may be likely to decide that Nichols is not entitled to compensation for a disease from which he does not suffer, even though such a history of toxin exposure vastly increases the likelihood of developing some type of cancer.

Fairmont, New York - The most recent deadline for an asbestos abatement project in Goldens Bridge has come and gone, and town officials have extended the deadline yet again.

Town officials have made several efforts to get property owner Brian Stein to clean up the three dilapidated cottages on the property, but Stein has not responded to any requests. All three of the dilapidated cottages contain asbestos, which must be removed before the cottages can be demolished.

Members of the Town Board finally agreed that the town would complete the work and temporarily cover the costs involved.

Asbestos, which is known to cause an aggressively lethal type of cancer called mesothelioma, was widely used in construction materials for much of the twentieth century, and due to the widespread use of the substance, older buildings must be demolished with special care.

Older buildings which contain asbestos must have all the asbestos removed before demolition can go ahead, to prevent the generation and dispersal of large clouds of asbestos dust which could contaminate the environment and be breathed in by locals.

Removal of asbestos is costly and time-consuming, however, due to the need for specially trained and licensed workers, the need for special removal techniques to limit the production of dust, and the increased costs of disposal of asbestos-containing materials.

Area residents have been complaining for almost a decade that the three cottages are dangerous, not only due to asbestos, but also due simply to their run-down state.

Three successive town administrations have had discussions on what to do about the situation, but no action was taken until this year, when Town Supervisor Edward Brancati gave Stein a deadline of May 19 to locate and hire a contractor to carry out the asbestos remediation, but the deadline passed with no progress made.

Stein responded with a letter stating that he was “appalled at [officials'] behavior and blatant lies.” Stein claims that he had been negotiating a contract with an asbestos abatement contractor, and that town officials had interfered and caused the deal to fall through.

Even so, the town has issued yet another deadline, saying that Stein now has until Monday June 9 to contact officials. Bracanti says of the new deadline, “This is really it. It’s June 9 and I am not kidding.”

Two contractors have this week been fined as a result of improper handling of asbestos-containing materials. They are the Cinter Construction Company, Inc. of Williamsburg, VA and AAPEX Environmental Services Inc. of Liverpool, NY.

Asbestos was a common component of construction materials up until the 1980s due to its high fire resistance and other desirable factors, but the demolition or renovation of older buildings means the asbestos they contain must be dealt with appropriately.

Dumping of asbestos-containing waste in any location other than a licensed landfill is illegal due to the hazards associated with asbestos exposure. Inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause lethal diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma due to the chronic inflammation that the fibers cause in the lungs.

Due to the hazards of asbestos exposure, removal and disposal of the substance must be carried out in accordance with strict state and federal regulations. This means asbestos must be removed from buildings using specific safe methods, and must only be disposed of at landfill sites which are equipped and licensed to handle the substance.

Failure to adhere to laws and regulations controlling asbestos handling can lead to hefty fines, as the two contractors discovered this week.

The Williamsburg, Virginia incident concerns the Cinter Construction Company, Inc., which was found by the Department of Environmental Quality to have dumped asbestos-containing waste from a $14 million Navy housing construction site in downtown Newport News.

The construction company had illegally dumped asbestos waste at a Suffolk landfill, mistakenly believing it was uncontaminated soil. However, when DEQ officials took samples of the twenty truckloads of waste dumped at the landfill, they found that asbestos was present.

The second incident, in Liverpool, New York, occurred after a contractor admitted in federal court to illegally removing and disposing of asbestos-containing materials. The contractor admitted to having been handling asbestos illegally for more than ten years.

AAPEX Environmental Services Inc. of Liverpool, NY also admitted to defrauding an insurance company. It had done so by failing to inform its insurer that it was carrying out activities in which asbestos handling was involved, in order to obtain lower insurance premiums.

AAPEX Environmental Services Inc. has agreed to pay a fine of $166,700 as part of a plea deal. The deal also involves an agreement to permanently cease handling asbestos-related work.

Corinth, New York - Clean up of asbestos-laden fire debris has been a week-long job in the village of Corinth, New York, where fire destroyed three businesses on the town’s main street in February.

Clean up of the burned-out building sites began on Thursday and could be finished as early as Monday, says site supervisor for Rensselaer-based BCL Services Inc, Brian Hladik.

The presence of asbestos in the burned buildings has increased the cost of the clean up somewhat. Asbestos was a common addition to many different types of construction materials up until the 1980s. Cheap, light, durable and highly fire resistant, asbestos was typically considered something of a “wonder mineral” and was used in appliances, fire-resistant protective fabric, and many other items in addition to construction materials.

However, many businesses and home-owners and workers are now paying the price, due not only to the high cost of asbestos abatement and removal, but also to the personal costs of asbestos exposure, in the form of chronic lung diseases and asbestos cancer.

Cleaning up a burned out building which contains asbestos construction materials is a difficult and time-consuming-not to mention expensive-process due to the precautions which must be taken to protect workers and the public from asbestos exposure, and to prevent the release of asbestos fibers into the environment.

Asbestos fibers are considered safe as long as they are trapped within the matrix of construction materials such as cement products and plasters. However, damage such as remodeling, demolition, and fire damage breaks up construction materials and can potentially release large amounts of inhalable asbestos fibers into the air.

For workers involved in cleaning up the three Main Street businesses in Corinth, that means extra precautions taken to prevent asbestos exposure and release of asbestos fibers.

For the business owners, that means extra expenses incurred in clean up, due not only to the measures that must be taken on site, but also because disposal of asbestos containing waste is around three times more expensive than disposal of non-hazardous waste.

Luckily for these business owners, the clean up has been partly funded by a “small cities” grant which was given to the village. In mid-May, members of the Village Board voted to help the owners of the businesses clean up the sites by providing a subsidy of $74,000.

New York - Town officials of Goldens Bridge in New York say they have made ever effort to have property owner Brian Stein complete the repairs needed to make his property at 28 Fairmount Road in Goldens Bridge less hazardous, but to no avail.

Members of the Town Board have now agreed that the town will complete the work and temporarily cover the costs involved.

The town had previously asked Brian Stein to contract out the work that would be required to safely demolish three summer cottages on the seven acre Fairmount Road property. All three of the dilapidated cottages contain asbestos, which must be removed before the cottages can be demolished.

Asbestos, which is known to cause an aggressively lethal type of asbestos cancer called mesothelioma, was widely used in construction materials for much of the twentieth century, and due to the widespread use of the substance, older buildings must be demolished with special care.

Older buildings which contain asbestos must have all the asbestos removed before demolition can go ahead, to prevent the generation and dispersal of large clouds of asbestos dust which could contaminate the environment and be breathed in by locals.

Removal of asbestos is costly and time-consuming, however, due to the need for specially trained and licensed workers, the need for special removal techniques to limit the production of dust, and the increased costs of disposal of asbestos-containing materials.

Area residents have been complaining for almost a decade that the three cottages are dangerous, not only due to asbestos, but also due simply to their run-down state.

Three successive town administrations have had discussions on what to do about the situation, but no action was taken until this year, when Town Supervisor Edward Brancati gave Stein a deadline of May 19 to locate and hire a contractor to carry out the asbestos remediation, but the deadline has passed with no progress made.

According to Edward Brancati, “The Town Board is now authorizing our building department to move forward with this. We will work with our own consultants to apply to the New York State DEC [Department of Environmental Conservation] for the required permits so we can begin demolition at the Fairmount Road property.”

Town officials said that the DEC usually takes between two and three weeks to respond to requests, but hope that the work can begin quickly once the permit is received. All of the costs the town incurs in getting the work done will be charged to Brian Stein.

After the Manhattan Institute released its damning report on asbestosis lawsuit scams, a doctor who has been involved in testifying as an expert witness commented on the situation.

Dr. David Weill, who has testified twice as an asbestosis expert before Senate committees, is the director of the Lung and Heart-Lung Transplant at the Stanford University Medical Center.

Asbestosis, says Weill, is a “pretty serious thing, possibly fatal.” That makes it frustrating that thousands of fake asbestosis claims have made it difficult for the genuine asbestosis sufferers to obtain fair compensation for their injuries.

Weill says that the genuine claims “get diluted out by the false claims.” In the very large class action lawsuits, plaintiffs often receive only a few thousand dollars. A windfall for people who don’t actually have the disease, but for people who are genuinely affected by asbestosis, a few thousand dollars can’t begin to compensate them for the way their lives are changed by the disease.

In recent years, Weill helped uncover facts about a massive scam that was carried out in Texas. It was discovered that plaintiffs suing for compensation for silicosis had already received compensation for asbestosis, a disease with an entirely different cause. The scam involved both lawyers and doctors, and the manufacture of thousands of false silicosis claims.

In testifying to the Senate, Weill explained that on an x-ray asbestosis and silicosis look like entirely different diseases, and furthermore than it “would be extremely unusual for one person in a working lifetime to have sufficient exposure to both types of dust to cause both diseases.”

In addition, said Weill, “outside the litigation setting, confusion between silicosis and asbestosis does not occur.”

Weill says that the attempted fraud in the Texas case was so blatant that the same plaintiff was diagnosed with asbestosis by one screening firm in February, and the next month was diagnosed with silicosis by another screening firm. However, in both cases the screening firm didn’t pick up any symptoms of the other disease. According to Weill, a treating physician would have diagnosed both silicosis and asbestosis in the same x-ray if both diseases were present.

However, in these massive class action suits, the physicians who read the x-rays rarely had any contact with the patients who supposedly had the diseases.

Weill was later hired by W.R. Grace & Company to help design a clinical study of the asbestos claims that had been made against the company. The study demonstrated that more than 80% of the asbestosis claims that had been made against W.R. Grace & Company were actually false.

The American Bar Association has been supporting federal legislation that would establish specific medical criteria for asbestos-related litigation since 2003. However, the Manhattan Institute report says even that may not be enough, as unscrupulous attorneys might soon find ways around such legislation.

A new report from the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy part of a series of reports called “Trial Lawyers, Inc.,” describes how some unscrupulous attorneys have turned to profiteering and “abusive litigation” involving asbestos.

The Manhattan Institute’s report centers on the practice of using class action lawsuits to generate thousands of false asbestos claims. This practice, says the report, not only allows people to claim compensation falsely; it also means that people who are genuinely affected by asbestos-related diseases don’t get the compensation they need or deserve.

The report proposes four law reforms that, it says, will “prevent the worst of [the] documented abuses.”

First, the report says, medical criteria laws should be established, to prevent the practice of mass screening. The report points to an example of a law passed in Texas in 2005 as a good example of such a reform: “Texas legislation outlaws mass screenings, requires a certified medical report, and places mesothelioma and other malignant cases at the front of court dockets.”

Second, states should prevent trial lawyers from “forum-shopping.” This refers to the practice of lawyers hunting down the states and court rooms that are most likely to look upon their cases favorably. A good example, says the report, are the laws established in Mississippi in 2004, where “a plaintiff could file a claim only in the county in which he resided, where the defendant corporation was headquartered, or where the injury actually occurred. In addition, Mississippi’s reform required that the rule apply to every plaintiff so that lawyers could not bundle claims together and ship them to a permissive county where only one of the plaintiffs resides.”

Third, says the Manhattan Institute, states could adopt “joint-and-several” liability reforms that would solve the “solvent defendant” problem. This problem occurs when lawyers sue companies that are more or less unrelated to the manufacture of asbestos products. The report suggests that such companies should not be held “severally liable.” meaning they shouldn’t be held 100% responsible for asbestos-related damages in cases where they are not 100% responsible for a plaintiff’s injuries.

Fourth, the practice of “double-dipping,” where plaintiffs can win compensation multiple times for related conditions, should be outlawed to prevent scams of the type that was uncovered in Texas in 2005. In that scam, plaintiffs were receiving compensation for both asbestosis and silicosis in separate lawsuits.

The Manhattan Institute report also points out, however, that “judges, prosecutors, and even corporate defendants must be involved in defeating the asbestos litigation morass.”

A new report from the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy part of a series of reports called “Trial Lawyers, Inc.,” describes how some unscrupulous attorneys have turned to profiteering and “abusive litigation” involving asbestos.

The Manhattan Institute’s report centers on the practice of using class action lawsuits to generate thousands of false asbestos claims. This practice, says the report, not only allows people to claim compensation falsely; it also means that people who are genuinely affected by asbestos-related diseases don’t get the compensation they need or deserve.

The business of asbestos-related lawsuits began in the 1970s: since then, more than eighty companies have declared bankruptcy as a direct result of dealing with hundreds or thousands of lawsuits. Their insurers have paid more than $70 billion in asbestos-related claims. However, the report points out that of that $70 billion, attorneys received $19 billion and $21 billion went to pay court fees: only $30 billion actually reached the plaintiffs.

The report says that some attorneys have set up asbestos litigation as a business with “sophisticated marketing to attract thousands of claimants,” and that attorneys “package claims together to overwhelm defendants and courts.” It criticizes attorneys that bully plaintiffs into accepting settlements that are more profitable for the lawyer than their client.

In addition, says the Manhattan Institute report, “much of modern asbestos litigation has involved the filing of lawsuits by individuals who aren’t sick against companies that never made the product alleged to have caused their sickness.”

That’s not to say there are no real plaintiffs-there are plenty of those. And most lawyers involved in these cases aren’t resorting to these types of dirty tactics. But the problem definitely exists.

Asbestos litigation has gotten out of hand because plaintiff attorneys involved in class action lawsuits have begun advertising for people to join in those suits-but the attorneys aren’t always picky about whether or not all of the plaintiffs actually have asbestos-related diseases.

There have even been cases where attorneys have paid doctors to read diagnostic x-rays and falsely diagnose people with asbestosis.

Massive fraud was discovered in one case where U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack unearthed facts about plaintiffs suing for compensation for silicosis had already received compensation for asbestosis, a disease with an entirely different cause.

Since 2003 the American Bar Association has supported federal legislation that would establish specific medical criteria for asbestos-related litigation.
However, the Manhattan Institute report says even that may not be enough, as unscrupulous attorneys are always on the lookout for new ways to profit from asbestos-related claims.