Archive for the ‘Texas’ Category

Guadalupe County, Texas - Demolition work on Guadalupe County’s Justice Center was halted after the discovery of a small amount of asbestos in the building’s second floor.

The demolition work is being carried out prior to planned renovation activities. The discovery of asbestos in a small room on the second floor of the building means that the demolition must be halted so that the asbestos can be removed.

The asbestos was found in an adhesive that was used to glue linoleum wall tiles. Asbestos was commonly used in the twentieth century in many different types of construction materials, including many kinds of adhesives, so the discovery is not an uncommon or surprising one.

The schedule will be delayed for approximately two weeks so that the asbestos can be safely removed.

Asbestos abatement is expected to cost around $25,000. Commissioners have also voted to hire a company to monitor the building’s air quality during the abatement, at a cost of almost $7,000.

Asbestos removal is typically an expensive procedure: licensed contractors who are trained to work with asbestos must be used, and the process can be a lengthy one due to special safety procedures that must be carried out when removing asbestos. In addition, disposal of asbestos waste is around three times more expensive than disposing of non-hazardous waste.

Monitoring the air quality increases the cost of removal somewhat, but is important to help ensure that asbestos removal workers and the building’s employees are safe while the asbestos is removed. If any increase in airborne asbestos levels is noticed, steps can be taken immediately to prevent the spread of fibers.

Some county employees who work in the building-those who are situated close to the second floor removal area-will be relocated for the two days the project is expected to take.

According to County Judge Mike Wiggins, an asbestos survey that was previously carried out in the building, prior to the planned renovations, did not locate the asbestos adhesive, but that “fortunately it wasn’t a huge amount of asbestos.”

Once the asbestos removal is completed, demolition can continue, and then the planned renovations, which include upgrading outdated plumbing and replacing locks on prisoner cells doors, will be carried out.

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.

Galveston County, Texas – A Virginian couple, Larry Wilbur Hacker and wife Leslie Hacker, have filed a lawsuit in Galveston County, Texas, claiming that Larry Hacker developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure that occurred at work..

Larry Hacker was diagnosed with mesothelioma on January 17, 2008, and believes that the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M), and other companies, are responsible for the development of the cancer. Mesothelioma is a particularly devastating and aggressive type of cancer, caused only by exposure to asbestos.

In addition to the 3M Company, the lawsuit names the Union Carbide Corporation and the Phillips Electronics North America Corporation as defendants.

The lawsuit, filed April 16, claims that the defendants subjected Larry Hacker to exposure to asbestos as a result of his working with or around products manufactured and sold by the companies. Hacker claims that the exposure occurred during the course of his employment as a general maintenance worker and a boiler technician.

Machinery such as boilers and furnaces are in fact particularly vulnerable locations. Asbestos is virtually fireproof, and does not burn or conduct heat. For these reasons it was often used around boilers and furnaces, particularly in industrial locations. In older industrial plants the likelihood is very high that asbestos is present in these types of areas.

The suit filed by Larry and Leslie Hacker claims that “Larry Wilbur Hacker had been exposed, on numerous occasions, to asbestos-containing products and possibly machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos, thus he had inhaled great quantities of asbestos fibers.”

In addition, the suit alleges “Larry Wilbur Hacker was unaware of the hazards and defects in the asbestos-containing products of the Defendants, which made them unsafe for purposes of manipulation and installation…Similarly, Larry Wilbur Hacker was unaware of the hazards and defects in the machinery requiring or calling for the use of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials.”

The suit also claims that the defendants may have violated federal or state regulations relating to asbestos exposure. The lawsuit includes charges of gross negligence and conspiracy, as well as aiding and abetting. In short, that Larry Hacker was exposed to asbestos without being aware of or being told of the dangers, or being protected from the dangers by his employers.

The Hackers’ lawsuit claims reimbursement of medical expenses and lost income. In addition the Hackers are claiming punitive and exemplary damages.

Texas - A Houston area couple has filed a lawsuit against Union Carbide and other chemical and polymer companies, claiming that pulmonary cancer suffered by the man was caused by years of asbestos exposure.

The couple is Clyde and Robbie Dempsey, of Pasadena. Their lawsuit alleges that the defendants-including Union Carbide-committed acts of misrepresentation, negligence, and conspiracy.

The suit claims that Clyde Dempsey was exposed to asbestos and other hazardous products while working for twenty-five years as a commercial and industrial plumber and pipefitter in Texas.

Occupational asbestos exposure was tragically common in the twentieth century. Many companies that employed asbestos workers did not provide safety equipment to prevent exposure. Hundreds of thousands of people have died or will die from asbestos-relocated diseases such as mesothelioma cancers or asbestos. Billions of dollars worth of lawsuits have already been won or settled over the past several decades, with many more to come.

Clyde and Robbie Dempsey have named several defendants that they believe have contributed to the development of Clyde Dempsey’s mesothelioma. In addition to Union Carbide, the suit names Amaco, A.W. Chesterton, Avco, Bechtel, Bondex, Certainteed, Fluor, GE, Georgia Pacific, Kaiser Gypsum, Kelly-Moore Paint Co., Shell and Sun Oil and others. The companies are named variously as product, premises, equipment, or contractor defendants.

Clyde Dempsey spoke with the Texas Medical Occupation Institute in February, and said that he had breathed in clouds of asbestos dust that were created and dispersed not by him, but by people he worked adjacent to. He claims that he suffered occupational exposure to asbestos for at least twenty years.

Clyde Dempsey retired in 2004, and in 2007 told doctors he had been suffered from increased shortness of breath. He was subsequently diagnosed with mesothelioma.

The lawsuit filed by the Dempseys says that “As a result of Mr. Dempsey’s exposure to asbestos-containing products over his career, he contracted the serious and debilitating disease which will some day take his life. Each Defendant bears responsibility in causing Plaintiffs’ injuries in the individual capacities in which they have been sued.”

The suit also claims that “as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Mr. Dempsey has sustained a multitude of severe and incapacitating injuries.”

The Dempseys are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The suit indicates that Robbie Dempsey will continue with litigation if Clyde Dempsey should die before the suit is resolved.

Texas - The family of a man who once worked as a boilermaker and laborer has filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for the asbestos-related disease the man subsequently developed.

The man was W.Z. Hutson, who initially filed and won a lawsuit after developing a malignant disease as a result of asbestos exposure. Hutson has since died of that disease.

Now, his surviving family members are seeking compensation for a different asbestos-related disease, which they allege ended his life prematurely. The new lawsuit claims that it is unrelated to the previous suit because it names new defendants.

The lawsuit was filed on April 3 in the Jefferson County District Court, and named a total of 55 companies as defendants, including the A.O. Smith Corp.

According to the complaint, the A.O. Smith Corp. and other defendants knowingly and maliciously produced and distributed asbestos-containing products in Jefferson County.

Most of Hutson’s working life was spent as a general laborer or boilermaker for several different employers. This work, the complaint alleges, caused Hutson to suffer from industrial dust diseases caused by breathing the asbestos-containing products.

According to the suit, the defendants were negligent because they did not adequately test the asbestos products they manufactured. In addition, the suit claims, the manufactures sold dangerous goods without warning consumers of the risks of asbestos exposure.

Among the defendants named are iron supplier Zurn Industries and aerospace industry giant Lockheed Martin.

The suit also names American Optical Corp. and the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Corp (3M), alleging that these companies produced defective masks that did not provide the respiratory protection they claimed.

The second lawsuit relating to Hutson is relying on the decision made in a 2000 case known as Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp. This suit set a precedent for allowing an asbestos victim to file a second lawsuit in certain circumstances.

In this case, the Texas Supreme Court decided that an asbestos victim could file a second lawsuit if they developed an asbestos-related cancer at a future date. The ruling overturned a previous opinion in which a person could only bring one lawsuit for asbestos-related disease or injury, even if they later developed a second illness or injury relating to asbestos.

The new decision was made in 2000 because a single action rule would forbid a second suit and in doing so force the asbestos plaintiff to file premature litigation on speculative claims.

In the present case, Hutson’s surviving family members are suing for exemplary damages, as well as medical expenses, lost income and earning capacity, and physical and mental suffering.

HOUSTON, Texas – An asbestos case that has garnered a great deal of publicity has ended with the jury finding for the defendant. The jury in the case against DuPont returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, finding no negligence on the part of the company.

A month ago, plaintiff’s attorney drew headlines with his opening statement, which claimed that DuPont’s past asbestos safety records were so malicious and egregious that the company’s right to exist should be taken away. The Jefferson County jury did not agree. They found that there was no negligence on the part of DuPont in the death of Willis Whisnant, a former pipefitter at a DuPont plant.

Willis Whisnant Jr. worked for B.F. Shaw as a pipe fitter who was contracted to work at a DuPont plant in 1966. The suit brought against DuPont by his family alleged that he was exposed to enough asbestos fibers while working there to eventually develop mesothelioma, a rare cancer attributed to asbestos exposure. Whisnant died of mesothelioma at the age of 72 in 1999.

After his death, Whisnant’s family joined an on-going class action suit against DuPont and several other chemical and oil companies, filed originally in Jefferson County District Court before Whisnant’s death. The class members alleged that DuPont negligently and maliciously exposed them to asbestos when they knew asbestos fibers created health hazards. Whisnant’s case, which included five other defendants, was severed from the class action suit. The other defendants have settled out of court.

The jury decided that even though Whisnant was an independent contractor, DuPoint shared responsibility for his safety, however, they decided that DuPont did not contribute to his cancer by negligence.

The plaintiffs stated that DuPont, like many other companies, knew about the dangers of asbestos as early as the 1940s, but conspired to conceal the knowledge to protect the company from lawsuits instead of implementing policies that would protect the lives of its workers.

DuPont’s attorneys focused on two points. First, they argued that the studies done in the 1940s were focused on those in environments where workers were heavily exposed to asbestos, such as in mines, not factory and chemical plant workers. In addition, they argued, DuPont implemented safety guidelines to protect its employees from asbestos even before OSHA implemented its asbestos guidelines in 1972.

Among the witnesses who took the stand during the trial were coworkers who testified that they’d never seen Whisnant wear a respirator mask, which the company guidelines required workers to wear when they were ‘exposed to extreme dust’ conditions, as well as consultants and employees of DuPont who described the safety guidelines implemented by DuPont before the 1972 OSHA guidelines were established.

Houston, Texas – Last week, the elderly tenants of Bellerive Apartments in Houston, Texas discovered that their possessions had been severely damaged following the fire that left them homeless shortly after Thanksgiving 2007.

The fire was caused by a candle that had been left burning in a fifth-floor apartment. No residents were seriously hurt in the blaze, but tenants are distraught over the news that their landlord—the Houston Housing Authority—says that clothing and personal possessions that tenants were forced to leave behind may be contaminated with asbestos.

A total of 61 of the 210 apartments are affected by asbestos contamination. The hazardous mineral was spread throughout almost a third of the apartments during the fire and subsequent fire-fighting activities.

However, the HHA now says it doesn’t have the money to clean up all the contaminated items. Certain porous types of items such as clothing and upholstery will be too expensive.

Repair work on the building is scheduled to being shortly. The former Bellerive tenants want to retrieve their items, but have been told their belongings will be destroyed if they do not arrange for clean-up before repair begins. HHA has told some of the tenants they must pay for the clean-up themselves due to the cost of cleaning porous items.

HHA vice president of external affairs Regina Woolfolk says the agency will pay for the clean-up of non-porous items, but its insurance won’t cover the cost of cleaning porous items.

On Tuesday, Mayor Bill White said that the tenant should be allowed to retrieve their personal items as long as they don’t hold the HHA responsible for asbestos contamination.

The Mayor also urged the HHA to delay destroying tenants’ belongings until the city has had time to find a solution.

A suggestion that the tenants sign a legal waiver that would allow them to retrieve their belongings has met with favor from Kim Setzo, the leader of a social service agency that is working with the former Bellerive residents. She believes most tenants would be willing to sign the waiver.

President and owner of DSM Environmental Services Joe Rafferty said that a review of the asbestos contamination levels in the building indicates that only two apartments require expensive asbestos removal procedures.

However, Horace Allison, senior vice president of the HHA, disagrees that asbestos contamination is a problem only in those two apartments, saying “having ‘some’ asbestos is like being a little bit pregnant.”

Repairs begin on the building this week, and some tenants will be able to move back home during the summer. Those in the more seriously damaged areas of the building will be able to move back in the fall.

HOUSTON, Texas - Over 200 residents of a senior citizens home nearly lost everything in a fire on November 26th. Nearly four months later, many are still waiting to get their possessions back, thanks to the possibility of asbestos contamination.

Back in November, flames and smoke forced over 200 residents of the Bellerive senior housing complex out of their apartment homes. Residents have been allowed to return to the apartments once since the fire to some belongings, but many other belongings are still in the possession of the Housing Authority. The reason is that the fire may have released asbestos into the air, and those belonging - clothing, furnishings and other items - may be covered with the cancer-causing fibers. The cost of cleaning them is prohibitive.

Many of the residents are worried they could lose everything.

At a recent meeting of residents to discuss the issue, many expressed a desire to return to their homes. The housing authority says that items in 61 of the apartments are contaminated with asbestos, which has been proven to cause mesothelioma, a rare, aggressive cancer that is invariably fatal.

Kim Szeto, a representative of the Asian-American Family Center , said that a lot of the residents don’t believe their apartments are contaminated because they can’t see the asbestos. They just want proof.

Asbestos fibers are as much as 1200 times thinner than a human hair, and fractions of an inch long. Lighter than air, the tiny fibers can float in the air for long periods of time, and easily be carried into other areas of the building. Inhaled, they lodge in the lungs and other soft tissue and cause changes that lead to cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Szeto said that cleaning the items in the apartments can cost up to $3,400 per room, and that most of the residents can’t afford to pay that. The Housing Authority says that cleaning asbestos from personal items is not covered by their insurance policy. Residents will meet with a local cleanup company this week to try to negotiate a lower price to remove the asbestos from their belongings.

In the meantime, the Housing Authority is footing the bill for residents to live in other subsidized housing units. The Housing Authority is also applying for grants in the hopes of getting some of the cost paid for that way, and are appealing to the community and local corporations for aid and contributions to help residents.

Housing Authority officials have assured the residents and their families that the asbestos hazard did not exist in the building before the fire released it.

Kerrville City, Texas – In most states, asbestos regulations tend to get tighter over time, not more relaxed. Yet that’s exactly what is happening in Texas town Kerrville City.

A new set of building codes that have been criticized as being too relaxed, and cutting too many corners, is up before the Kerrville City Council for final approval today.

The updated codes include the International Building Code, International Energy Conservation Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Mechanical Code, International Plumbing Code, and International Residential Code.

The amended codes include changes to asbestos regulations for owners of existing commercial buildings. If the new set of building codes is approved, owners of existing commercial structures will have certain building permit requirements waived in some situations. The requirements that may be waived include the need for asbestos surveys. Demolition of interior load-bearing walls is also included.

Two Kerrville City building officials have already resigned over the “weakened” building codes.

Brian Whitton, who resigned on March 3, had been chief building official for six years. Jeff Price, who quit on March 12, had been the city’s assistant building official for a full decade.

A few days after resigning, Whitton said “The big reason is that City Council has decided to pass ordinances with local amendments that will severely weaken the building codes. I can’t believe any reasonable person in this community would think that’s a good thing.”

Price said he left his position for “similar reasons.” Both men now work for private code enforcement companies.

Whitton said he had respect for the city’s officials, but he “wouldn’t be surprised if someone from Austin pays the city a visit,” meaning the Texas Department of Health.

Of the recent building code changes, Mayor Gene Smith said “I think you’re really violating the intent of the code. Public safety is not an economical matter.”

Among the recent changes for homeowners is the removal of the requirement for an asbestos survey before demolishing any interior walls in their homes. Councilman Scott Gross said that since asbestos hasn’t been used in construction since the mid-1980s, it was a waste of money for homeowners to have their homes surveyed for the substance.

However, the removal of this section of code means that any homeowner, regardless of when their home was built, is not required to have their home surveyed. Asbestos was so widely used between the 1940s and 1980s that there are literally tens of millions of homes all over the country that contain asbestos. Now, Kerrville City homeowners don’t have to have their homes surveyed before interior demolition, even if their home was built during that era of peak asbestos use.

Demolition activities are highly likely to release asbestos dust if the substance is present, presenting a possible health hazard for anyone in the vicinity of such an activity.

March 21, 2008, Texas - The trial of Whisnat vs. DuPont has wrapped up its fifth week and is nearing its conclusion.

The plaintiff in the case is the estate of Willis Whisnat Jr., a former B.F. Shaw pipefitter who had worked as an independent contractor at DuPont in 1966. Whisnat’s family claims he developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure that occurred during his time at DuPont. Whisnat died in 1999 at age 72.

This week, DuPont’s attorneys produced video testimony of a former DuPont safety engineer who claimed to have developed safety programs for the chemical company as early as the 1950s.

The safety engineer, Kenneth Kruper, worked at DuPont between the 1950s and 1970s. Kruper testified that pipefitters and insulators who were working with asbestos would generate large amounts of asbestos dust. He also said that he would shut down the work area when the dust got so thick that “you could not see to the other side of the room.”

Kruper also testified that while the hazards of asbestos were a “mystery” during the 1950s and 1960s, he researched asbestos and worked with the chemical company to develop safety programs. Kruper said that DuPont put safety first and required its independent contractors to follow safety protocols.

Previous testimony from the plaintiffs alleged that DuPont knew about the risks of asbestos as early as the 1940s, and instead of focusing on employee safety chose to protect the company from lawsuits.

In response, DuPont argued that its 1940s studied focused on people who had been “heavily” exposed to asbestos, and also that the company took steps to protect its workers before the Occupational Safety and Health administration adopted guidelines in the 1970s.

Witnesses for the plaintiff also included former DuPont workers who testified that they had never seen Whisnat wearing a respirator.

DuPont’s response was that their 1960s and 1970s safety policies required workers in “extreme” conditions to use respirators. The plaintiff’s attorneys responded with testimony from an industrial hygienist who said that the workers could not be expected to know when conditions qualified as “extreme.”

Previously DuPont’s attorneys had attempted to file for mistrial on the grounds that plaintiff expert Dr. Gary K. Friedman discussed a document that should have constituted inadmissible evidence. In addition they claimed the document had not been disclosed to DuPont.

DuPont’s attorneys also claimed that the way the document was used would have prejudiced the jury.

The document was an x-ray report from 1986. The x-ray, which was of Willis Whisnat, was pronounced to be “clear.” Dr. Friedman said the x-ray results were evidence that Whisnat’s previous work as a pipefitter for Neches Butane was not significant in terms of asbestos exposure, due to the latency of mesothelioma development.

Mesothelioma tends to develop several decades after asbestos exposure, meaning that timing is an important factor in determining when and where the exposure occurred.

The defense, however, said that the document had not been properly admitted as evidence, and that it therefore should not have been presented to the jury at all. However, the motion to dismiss the document was denied.