Two new lawsuits recently filed in Kanawha County District Court in West Virginia involve people who developed serious diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos.

The first was filed by Joseph Keller, on behalf of the estate of Paul Norman Keller. The lawsuit names CSX Transportation, formerly known as the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad, as a defendant.

According to the lawsuit, Paul Keller worked for the railroad company for several years, and during his employment was exposed to toxic substances, including airborne asbestos fibers and dust.

The lawsuit filed by Keller says, “As a direct and proximate result of his exposure to the harmful dust, fumes and other products without any lack of due care on his part, the decedent contracted lung cancer and other diseases related to such exposure.”

Paul Keller was diagnosed with lung cancer, by which time he had already been suffering from the disease for several years. He died from the cancer on January 15, 2008.

The lawsuit states that the railroad company failed in its duty to provide Keller with a safe environment in which to work, according to the Federal Employer’s Liability Act. Joseph Keller is seeking punitive as well as compensatory damages on behalf of the deceased’s estate.

The second lawsuit involves a Kanawha County couple who have filed an asbestos-related lawsuit which names a total of 85 defendant companies. The lawsuit, filed by Vincent and Antoinette Scriptunas, claims that Vincent Scriptunas developed mesothelioma as a result of long-term exposure to asbestos.

Vincent Scriptunas, who worked for Union Carbide in South Charleston between 1951 and 1988, was diagnosed with the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma on June 20, 2007. Scriptunas claims to have been exposed to asbestos while working for Union Carbide.

According to the lawsuit filed by Vincent and Antoinette Scriptunas, the defendant companies are responsible for the development of the disease because they failed to protect or warn Scriptunas about the dangers of asbestos.

The Scriptunas are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for medical expenses, loss of income and earning capacity, and mental and physical suffering.

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.

Montpelier’s Main Street Middle School seems to be making every effort to solve its asbestos problems, with federal Environmental Protection Agency officials in the school to investigate the possible asbestos contamination which resulted in the school closing this week.

The school was closed on July 28, and currently officials don’t know whether the school will be able to open in time for the beginning of the new school year, less than one month away. The district’s asbestos control officer Chris Crothers says the extent of the asbestos problems, and the measures required to solve them, may keep the school closed into the new academic year.

Main Street Middle School was closed after a state Department of Health safety inspector found that workers at the school were using improper practices to remove floor tiles which contained asbestos. DOH asbestos and lead engineer Andrew Chevrefils noticed that workers were using methods which violate state regulations for removal of asbestos.

Employees of the contracting company were chipping asbestos tiles off the floors to prepare for laying new tiles. The workers were not wearing face masks or using air-sampling pumps to monitor air quality while the asbestos was being removed. Classroom doors were left open, and there were no barriers around the work area to ensure that other workers were not able to enter.

Chris Crothers says that based on the removal method and the lack of safety precautions, exposure was likely to have occurred, due to the probability of airborne asbestos particles being present. However, Austin Sumner, a DOH environmental and occupational epidemiologist, says it’s not likely that anyone working at the school is in “great danger” of developing an asbestos-related disease.

As a result, the DOH has shut down the project, and all contractors, employees, and other workers using the building have been asked to vacate until it has been deemed safe to return.

In addition to the floor tiles, several feet of asbestos insulation must be removed from pipes in the school’s basement.

School officials, DOH representatives and EPA representatives met at the school on Wednesday July 28. DOH officials have also notified the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Over the next month, the school must be monitored for signs of asbestos contamination, and both the basement insulation and the floor tiles must be removed. John Hollar, chairman of the Montpelier Board of School Commissioners, says the school will do everything and anything necessary to ensure the school is safe before it reopens. Chris Crothers has designed an asbestos removal plan for the school, which has received preliminary approval from the DOH.

Texas – DuPont has sought and been denied a writ of mandamus in their appeal against the overturning of the verdict in a recent asbestos-related lawsuit. DuPont won the case, but the plaintiff’s attorney asked that the verdict be overturned.

During February and March, the jury in the six-week Whisnant vs. DuPont asbestos trial listened to plaintiff claims that Willis Whisnant had developed mesothelioma as a result of negligence on the part of contractual employer DuPont. The jury decided in favor of the defendant. Subsequently the plaintiff’s attorney, Glen Morgan, asked that the verdict be set aside and a new trial granted.

Morgan filed a Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial stating that the jury’s decision was “contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of the evidence.” The sixteen-page motion argued that the jury may have been unduly influenced by an online and print publication, “The Southeast Texas Record,” which publishes articles about local court events.

Morgan claimed that the newspaper, which is owned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, deliberately publishes “anti-plaintiff propaganda,” and that articles about the Whisnant trial which were clearly favorable to DuPont may have contributed to the jury’s decision.

DuPont defense attorney M.C. Carrington defended the jury’s verdict, saying that “…the jury had every reason to reach the decision that they did. There is not any way that the court will find that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding.” Carrington also said that there was not enough evidence to determine whether or not the jury was unduly influenced by The Southeast Texas Record’s coverage of the trial.

Judge Donald Floyd evidently agreed with Glen Morgan, overturning the verdict and paving the way for a new trial.

The next step for DuPont was filing a writ of mandamus in appeals court. The writ is filed in an appeals court in an attempt to correct a lower court decision in which it is alleged there has been an abuse of discretion.

DuPont attorneys wrote in the writ that “speculative inference that jurors read news articles about the case during the trial” should not be grounds for overturning a verdict, and that there was no proof that any of the newspaper’s articles had any influence on the jury’s decision, or even that any jurors had read the articles.

DuPont’s attorneys also said that Judge Floyd should be forced to give a reason for granting a new trial to the plaintiff.

The appeals court, however, has denied DuPont’s request, saying that “the discretion and judgment of the trial court in granting a new trial cannot be controlled or directed by mandamus.”

Montpelier, Vermont – Closed on July 28 due to asbestos-related problems, Main Street Middle School in Montpelier, Vermont remains closed and school officials don’t know whether the school will be able to open in time for the beginning of the new school year, just one month away.

Due to the hazards of asbestos exposure, and the often difficult nature of preventing exposure during renovation work, schools tend to carry out asbestos-related work during summer vacations, when there’s plenty of time to make sure the job is done safely and effectively before students return.

However, districts asbestos control officer Chris Crothers says the school may not open in time for the beginning of the new school year due to the extent of the asbestos problems and the need to follow the required protocols in solving them.

The school was closed after a state Department of Health safety inspector found that workers at the school were using improper practices to remove floor tiles which contained asbestos.

Employees of the contracting company were chipping asbestos tiles off the floors to prepare for laying new tiles. The workers were not wearing face masks or using air-sampling pumps to monitor air quality while the asbestos was being removed. Classroom doors were left open, and there were no barriers around the work area to ensure that other workers were not able to enter.

Chris Crothers says that based on the removal method and the lack of safety precautions, exposure was likely to have occurred, due to the probability of airborne asbestos particles being present.

As a result, the DOH has shut down the project, and all contractors, employees, and other workers using the building have been asked to vacate until it has been deemed safe to return.

In addition to the floor tiles, several feet of asbestos insulation must be removed from pipes in the school’s basement.

Over the next month, the school must be monitored for signs of asbestos contamination, and both the basement insulation and the floor tiles must be removed. John Hollar, chairman of the Montpelier Board of School Commissioners, says the school will do everything and anything necessary to ensure the school is safe before it reopens.

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.

West Virginia – A Colorado woman who was diagnosed with mesothelioma has filed an asbestos-related lawsuit in Madison County Circuit Court in West Virginia.

Joann Dennett filed the lawsuit on July 23. Dennett says she was employed a number of different positions in several different locations throughout the country between 1958 and 2008, and at some point was exposed to asbestos.

Dennett was diagnosed with mesothelioma on August 12, 2007. She has filed suit against a total of 73 defendant companies, claiming her disease was wrongfully caused.

Among the 73 defendants are Bondex International, CBS, Chrysler, Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Trust, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, General Motors, Goodyear, Honeywell International, Ingersoll-Rand, International Paper, John Crane, MetLife, Monsanto, Pfizer, Philips Electronics and Trane US.

Joan Dennett claims that at some point during her employment history, and during home or automotive repairs, she was exposed to airborne asbestos fibers being emitted by products she was working with or around. Inhalation of the fibers caused her to develop mesothelioma decades after the exposure.

According to Dennett’s lawsuit the defendants either knew or should have known of the dangers associated with asbestos exposure. The suit claims that her exposure was foreseeable and should have been anticipated by the defendants.

In addition, Joan Dennett’s lawsuit claims that the defendants continued to use asbestos in their products even though adequate substitutes for asbestos could be used. The lawsuit also claims that the defendants failed to provide warnings about asbestos exposure, or any instructions on how to work safely with their asbestos-containing products to prevent exposure from occurring.

As a result, Dennett alleges, she unknowingly continued to work with and around asbestos unaware she was being exposed to a dangerous substance, and without taking any safety precautions.

Due to the alleged negligence of the named defendants, Dennett claims she developed mesothelioma as a direct result of the asbestos exposure.

Dennett is seeking damages to help pay for mesothelioma treatment, as well as compensation for physical and mental pain and suffering, lost income, and lost earning capacity. She asks for at least $200,000 in compensatory damages. In addition her lawsuit seeks punitive damages to punish the defendants for “willful, wanton, intentional and reckless” behavior.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health has issued a health consultation document stating that the BoRit asbestos site is not dangerous, saying the site poses “no apparent public health hazard to the community for cancer effects or no cancer effects.” Asbestos fibers have been found in soil, surface water, sediment, and air samples at the BoRit site over the years.

The document was released on July 14 by the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The document was prepared at the request of the Region 3 Environmental Protection Agency, but the organizations also hope that the document will alleviate some of the public’s concerns about the safety of the BoRit site.

The document includes details of a study carried out to “determine if levels of asbestos detected in the EPA’s 2006-2007 on-site and off-site ambient air sampling at the BoRit site in Ambler were at levels of public health concern.”

According to the study, the site is not harmful to the public, but “exposures to asbestos fibers when on-site soils and asbestos-containing material are disturbed are a public health hazard to area residents.” Essentially, the site is safe for now, but could become a hazard once the clean-up begins.

In addition, activities such as on-site sampling, which the EPA carries out to determine the extent of contamination at such sites, may disturb soil and materials to the extent that they may become hazardous to the public.

The document also states that in dry weather conditions such as those seen in the area in September 2007 might cause an increase in airborne asbestos levels at the site and potentially create a public health hazard.

This month, the EPA issued a fact sheet to be distributed to area residents, to let locals know that EPA contractors will soon begin preparing the BoRit site for clean-up. This work involved clearing vegetation, repairing fencing, and building access roads so that the site can be cleaned efficiently and safely. An EPA on-scene coordinator estimates that these preparatory activities will take around 45 days to complete.

The public can read the Pennsylvania Department of Health health consultation document online at www.epaosc.net/borit, under the “Documents” heading. There is a 45-day comment period, which ends on August 31. Comments must be mailed to the following address: Pennsylvania Department of Health, Bureau of Epidemiology, Health Assessment Program, ATTN: Christine Lloyd, Health Assessor, Room 933, Health and Welfare Building, 7th and Forster Streets, Harrisburg, PA, 17120

The federal Environmental Protection Agency continues to come under heavy fire over its proposed changes to asbestos regulations. This time, experts are accusing the EPA of watering down the regulations in an attempt to placate big industry.

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to hold a public meeting to discuss the method of assessing asbestos-related carcinogenic risks as outlined by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Many public health experts have subsequently spoken about their concerns with the EPA’s plans.

The meeting, held on the 21st and 22nd of July, was attended by asbestos and asbestos disease experts, including Richard A. Lemen, a pioneering asbestos researcher and former Assistant Surgeon General, and Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization director Linda Reinstein.

Currently the EPA uses methods which were developed in the 1980s, based on phase contrast microscopy as a measure of numbers of asbestos particles in samples being tested. This method was developed using existing data from cohorts of workers previously exposed to asbestos in various industrial settings.

However, the EPA methodology currently in use does not account for differences between different types of asbestos, and varying sizes and shapes of asbestos fibers. OSWER is proposing that an interim method be developed which accounts for these and other factors when assessing asbestos exposure risks.

The problem, some public health experts say, is that this may lead to some types of asbestos being considered “safer” than others—and that this is a dangerous way to regulate a highly toxic substance. Many high respected asbestos experts believe that all asbestos should be considered dangerous, and that there is no safe level of exposure.

After the EPA’s meeting this week many of the attendees have denounced the plans, but according to recent reports the EPA may end up making the changes regardless.

Another concern for experts is that the EPA’s proposal seems to be being rushed through the approval process—many physicians and scientists in federal organizations who would normally have a chance to review such plans haven’t had so much as a quick glance at the EPA’s proposal.

Even worse are the rumors that the EPA is rushing its proposal through in an effort to appease complaints from the automotive, mining, construction and chemical industries, all of which are feeling the sting of lawsuits from people who have developed asbestos-related diseases due to exposure over the past several decades.

The EPA appointed twenty scientists to its Scientific Advisory Board asbestos panel, asking them to evaluate the agency’s plan to change the way chrysotile asbestos—the most common type—is assessed in terms of the risks of exposure. Decades worth of research confirming that chrysotile is deadly were ignored by the EPA in favor of other studies claiming it does not cause mesothelioma.

According to one report, lawyers who routinely defend corporations against asbestos claims say passage of the EPA’s proposed regulation concerning chrysotile would vastly increase their chances of winning lawsuits relating to diseases caused by exposure to this type of asbestos.

As many schools across the country take advantage of the summer vacation to complete repairs and renovation projects, the Assumption School in West Grove, Philadelphia is continuing with an asbestos removal project thanks in part to grants received from several different organizations.

The school was built in 1959, during a period in which asbestos use in construction materials was peaking in the United States. Asbestos is an increasingly prevalent problem in schools across the country due to heavy use between the 1940s and 1980s.

Asbestos was once heavily used in construction materials of many different types, but due to its toxicity the asbestos is now becoming a serious problem, particularly as these buildings age and the asbestos they contain becomes more exposed and begins degrading.

In the Assumption School, the asbestos removal project is currently in the second phase of a three phase project planned for this summer. Currently asbestos is being removed from ceilings, hallway insulation, and from four classrooms.

All schools are required by federal law to adhere to Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) guidelines, which require schools to create and maintain asbestos management plans. The plans must include details of the location of any asbestos, as well as all measures taken to prevent exposure risks.

In addition, schools must be inspected every three years, and asbestos management plans must be available for public review by staff and parents.

According to Assumption School’s Home and School Association President Helen Leinhauser, the school is checked annually to ensure the asbestos it contains is safely sealed, and that students and staff are not at risk of exposure.

Over the past two years the school has raised around $260,000 for the asbestos removal and renovations. In addition the school has received grants from several different organizations, including a $37,000 grant in June from the Connelly Foundation of West Conshohocken, and a $20,000 grant in December 2007 from the Raskob Foundation of Wilmington.

The school also received $13,535 from funds raised by MesoWalk 2008, a charity walk held in Philadelphia in April. The Mesothelioma and Asbestos Disease Society contributed $6,000, while the other $7,535 was raised Assumption School walkers.

Fund-raising isn’t over yet, however. To complete phase three of the project, the school must still raise $32,000 to replace doors which were erected using asbestos caulking.